From jmmears at prodigy.net Wed May 1 00:25:18 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 00:25:18 -0000 Subject: Bad characters (Dudley/Draco) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38348 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "blpurdom" wrote: .> That was my point precisely. I was not trying to classify "types" > of "bad" characters. The folks I term "bad" characters are people > we've never known to do ANY good at all. I still contend that > Crouch, Sr. has never done anything good without an ulterior > motive. He put his son away even with inadequate evidence for the > sake of his career (even though this did turn out to be the right > thing to do). He engineered the switch between his wife and son, > which was categorically the WRONG thing to do and cannot therefore > count as a good act. He can't even treat Percy Weasley civilly. But how do we fit in Crouch, Sr.'s final struggle to warn Dumbledore? I can't see any element of self-interest there. In fact, his attempt to set things right is what ended up getting him killed (by his own son, no less). I think if he were *all* bad, he would have headed for the hills to save his own skin instead of risking the trip to Hogwarts. Truly, he's the only one of the "bad" characters who seems to be rather complex and for a seemingly minor character, pretty well-rounded. Barb continued: > It is true that the Dursleys are caricatures; but as far as that > goes, ALL of these unredeemable people are caricatures. That > includes Draco, the caricature of the bully. He's the wizarding > world version, just as Dudley is the Muggle world version. He has > different ammunition in his arsenal than Dudley, but they're kindred > spirits, and there's absolutely nothing nice that could be said > about either one of them at this point. I have to admit that even though I dislike Dudley, I've begun to pity him. In GoF he has really started paying the price for Vernon and Petunia's poor parenting skills. He's grotesquely obese, having to live with an absurdly severe diet (after never having any limits set in his life, before) and truly terrified of wizards and magic. He's developed some vulnerability and it's apparent that his life isn't going to be any bed of roses. In contrast, Draco Malfoy just seems to get more vile with every book. People do argue that he had a moment of vulnerability in the bouncing ferret incident, but he richly deserved what he got from fakeMoody IMO, since he was caught trying to curse Harry from behind (a truly nasty, cowardly act). Although, I could see Draco as a Dudley-type in SS/PS, I just don't think the comparison holds up by the time we reach GoF. Barb again: I just wish JKR could have > found a way to create villains--from the merely annoying Lockhart to > the archvillain Voldemort himself--who seemed more real and less two- > dimensional. The good characters are generally well-rounded and > realistic. Clearly she's able to do it. It may have been a > conscious choice to avoid making any of the major or minor villains > sympathetic; I don't know. I suppose I'm just saying that that > choice saddens me, as I think the texture of the books could be even > richer for more depth in these portrayals. I agree than Voldemort & many of the other villains are quite one- dimensional. However, I have hope that L. Malfoy and some of the others who haven't even been revealed as villains will be given some depth and development in future books. It's just that, since we are naturally closer to the good guys, we're bound to see more sides to them. After all, it's Harry's story, and as an 11 - 14 year old boy, he's not likely to go looking for ambiguity in the people he dislikes. Jo Serenadust From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed May 1 01:09:27 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 01:09:27 -0000 Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG) In-Reply-To: <20020430202957.21260.qmail@web9503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38350 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidi tandy wrote: > > --- jferer wrote: > > I can't agree that his "public humiliation" of > > Slytherin was a mistake > > or a moral failing at all. It was just, as the Trio > > had certainly done > > something extraordinary earing their House merit and > > glory. > > They did do something extraordinary - as did Neville > :) - but Dumbledore had known that for days. > Presumably, the banners hadn't even been up at mid-day > that day. Why couldn't he have allocated the points > beforehand? > > Of course, it was because it would've had less > dramatic impact, and I tend to disregard this as > something telling about Dumbledore simply because > we're reading novels which have certain things done > only for dramatic purpose, and other things not done > simply for characterisation. But it was really an > unnecessary thing to do to the Slytherins - none of > *them* had done anything wrong in the events which > allowed Harry to rescue the stone. You're disregarding, I think, how the Slytherins came to be 150 points ahead of Gryffindor in the first place...it was because of Draco Malfoy 's underhanded plot to catch them with Norbert. It's poetic justice for being a sneak. Pippin From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed May 1 01:22:52 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 01:22:52 -0000 Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38351 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > Of course, it was because it would've had less > > dramatic impact, and I tend to disregard this as > > something telling about Dumbledore simply because > > we're reading novels which have certain things done > > only for dramatic purpose, and other things not done > > simply for characterisation. But it was really an > > unnecessary thing to do to the Slytherins - none of > > *them* had done anything wrong in the events which > > allowed Harry to rescue the stone. > > > You're disregarding, I think, how the Slytherins came to be 150 > points ahead of Gryffindor in the first place...it was because of > Draco Malfoy 's underhanded plot to catch them with Norbert. It's > poetic justice for being a sneak. The rest of Slytherin House had nothing to do with that. Yes, I know that each student's actions reflect on their house -- but that's what the points system is for. The Slytherins deserved to lose the House Cup because of Draco's actions. They did *not* deserve to have their faces rubbed in it in front of the whole school. And Snape, in particular, did not deserve to be jerked around by his boss in front of all his colleagues. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From devin.smither at yale.edu Wed May 1 01:33:26 2002 From: devin.smither at yale.edu (uilnslcoap) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 01:33:26 -0000 Subject: One-dimensional evil characters Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38352 Before I write a 10-page paper this evening, I thought I'd waste some time by putting something down that I've thought for a long time. I agree that up to now, we've been given very few (maybe no) examples of a "bad" character doing something good. Voldy, Lucius, Draco, etc. seem to be pretty nasty all the way around with no redeeming characteristics at all. But, I don't think this is a permanent state of affairs. We've often talked about on this list how these books have really developed a more complicated moral outlook as time goes on. Snape has always been kind of a gray guy, but in GoF, it became much more apparent how completely Dumbledore trusts Snape. I'm sorry I don't remember who said it, but yes, PoA really shows HRH becoming aware that the world does not revolve around them, that there is a big scary world outside that they are going to have to find their place in, etc. With these moral developments, I don't think Rowling will leave us in the lurch when we want "evil" characters that do good things (or at least have some amount of depth). I think come either the next book or the one after, the question of good vs. evil is going to become even more a point of focus, and I believe Rowling is going to show us that "evil" characters can have more to them than pure evil (I can even imagine some very minor human showing on Voldemort's part, though I kinda doubt it). Certainly Peter, via his debt and such, will do something interesting and maybe "good." Draco has time for depth to be added (Rowling had better get going soon, though). In other words, I think the jury is in too soon. It's all these problems with having canon incomplete. I think Rowling is aware of the one-dimensionalness of her current evil characters, but one must remember, Harry is only 14, and he's already had to take kind of a lot in. I think his POV probably does restrict his take to "that guy's good, that guy's evil." Especially before PoA, and really, Harry may have to deal with the fact that Sirius isn't a perfect person (and James and Lily weren't perfect people) at some point. By GoF, he seems to have come a little more to terms with the fact that there's more to Snape than he almost cares to admit, and within three years time, he will probably come to see that there is more complexity in moral-labelling (for both those labelled "good" and "bad") than he has been able to process thus far. Harry has allowed gray (with Snape) to enter into his chromatic scale of good and evil which was pretty much black and white before. I don't think that's the end of his adjustment on that scale, and I think the fleshing out of "evil" characters will probably occur very soon (canonically speaking, though I wish it were true in real life as well, I want OotP so badly!). Okay, I do have to write that paper at some point tonight, and I also have an oral exam in Spanish tomorrow, so I'd better go now. See you all later. Devin From elfundeb at aol.com Wed May 1 03:10:04 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 23:10:04 EDT Subject: Wizarding World law/ Fourth Man Message-ID: <14a.d32aa46.2a00b68c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38353 Eloise commented, on lawyers in the WW: The WW seems to have a rather medieval way of going on about things. I wouldn't on that basis expect lawyers (at least, not defence lawyers) in our modern sense, but I would expect that the accused might have some kind of supporter, a 'prisoner's friend' sort of thing. There presumably has to be some kind of mechanism by which the accused can defend himself, call witnesses,etc, which would be pretty difficult from inside Azkaban. I agree; I see no evidence whatsoever of legal advocacy in the Pensieve trials, nor in Hagrid's defense of Buckbeak. In fact, I'm not so sure the defendants in the Pensieve had the right to call witnesses on their behalf at all. That seems to have been a prerogative of the Council, though it's hard to tell since the trials are not consistent with one another. Basically, it seems that once evidence is presented against someone, that person will be convicted unless someone speaks up for that person or he/she presents convincing mitigating/exculpatory testimony himself, like Bagman's spectacularly successful defense, "I was a bit of an idiot." Cindy said: I suppose that possibly they were not tried, as happened in Sirius' > case, but I have always supposed, on the basis of the Bagman scene, that the > evidence had already been heard. Crouch opens his statement to each of the defendants with "we have heard the evidence against you." Of course, if "we" means only the council, then maybe the defendants weren't even present. Cindy adds: > I have never been able > to make sense of that scene. I actually find it rather FLINT-y. > Agreed! And one of my biggest problems, the reason I see all these trials as a grand Inquisition is that there seem to be no rules, and in particular any rules on how -- or whether -- the defendants may present evidence in their defense. Here's a rundown on the accused of which we are aware: Bagman -- didn't get to present witnesses to support him, but apparently had two opportunities to testify in his own defense, as Crouch asks if he has anything to add to his testimony. (I've wondered if JKR really meant to have Crouch ask if he had anything to add to the testimony he had heard.) Crouch Jr. & Co. -- were allowed to hear the testimony against them, but were not permitted, at least from what we're shown, to testify on their own collective or individual behalf. (Crouch starts with the same sentence as with Bagman, but didn't follow up with an offer.) And Crouch all but demanded that the jury send them straight off to Azkaban for life. I can hear the Queen of Hearts in the background all through this scene, screeching "Sentence first -- verdict afterward!" Sirius -- they didn't bother with a trial at all, so he had zero opportunity to defend himself, though maybe Fudge presented evidence to the council that made them decide to just leave him in Azkaban to rot. Snape -- we don't know if it came to a trial, or if Dumbledore's testimony on his behalf ended the matter before it came to that. But I don't have the sense that Snape arranged for Dumbledore to testify. I would expect Dumbledore to have done that on his own accord. So, it seems that the way to escape Azkaban is to have allies who are part of the process of the tribunal. Cindy: Maybe the delay in the release in OoP is being used to get these legal details correct this time around? :-) If there are to be any further legal proceedings, JKR will need advice, either from a lawyer or a historian whose specialty is the Salem witch trials. Cindy, on her new Tough Guy Fourth Man:, "based on Avery's successful plea that his fellow DEs should receive mercy." > I think Avery could well be Strong and Tough and Committed. Willing > to take one for the team. Willing to take one good long Cruciatus > Curse if it will spare his men the same. Avery isn't a SYCOPHANT at > all. He's a Tough guy. A hero among DEs, in a twisted "working for > [snip] > Well, Tough Guy Fourth Man is also quite smart. Number Two guys in > the Evil Overlord organization are *always* smart, aren't they? He's > not going to shoot off his mouth in the Pensieve scene. How does > that do Voldemort or anyone else any good? No, Fourth Man is already > plotting his release from Azkaban on an Imperius defense. So he > knows anything he says can and will be used against him. Tough Guy > Fourth Man is downright cagey. Cunning, really. > Based on the graveyard scene, I'd agree. Avery shows himself to be quite Tough in the graveyard. And shrewd. He knows how Voldemort operates, that he'll use someone as an example to the others. Throwing himself forward and volunteering is a great preemptive strike that might save him later from further personal torture that he knows Voldemort will inflict on the others; we see Voldemort reward Pettigrew just a moment later. Only, unlike Pettigrew, he doesn't wait until he's out of options before taking the pain, so he registers much higher on the bravery scale. > Or could it be that Avery is the head DE? After all, he doesn't just > plead his own case. In the middle of this little display, he > shrieks "Forgive us all!" Avery as Head DE? He's a contemporary of Snape's, which would have given him only a couple of years out of Hogwarts before Voldemort's fall. That's not too short a time to rise that far in the ranks? Though he could still be a Young Turk DE, I suppose. Either way, to have come so far so fast he probably would have to have started working for Voldemort before he left Hogwarts. But someone who's too young for Top DE can still have a very important role. What's the perfect job for a student DE? How about the recruiter? Wouldn't it make sense for the recruiter to be an insider? Whoever the recruiter was, he got quite a stellar group to sign up in that gang of Slytherins. Rosier, who fought to the death. The hard-as-nails Mrs. Lestrange, who (in Cindy's words) took a bullet for her co-defendants, and her husband. Wilkes, also dead in Voldemort's cause. And Snape, who's smarter than all the rest for having defected. Actually, Avery's actions post-release don't look too good compared to what his contemporaries did. No wonder he was down on his knees so fast in the graveyard, after seeing all those empty spaces. I think Avery's embarrassed that all his buddies (except Snape, of course), acquitted themselves much better than he did in the loyalty department. So I can accept Tough Guy Avery, Up and Coming DE Avery, Cunning Avery. But I've been having trouble with the Fourth Man part of it. I like the idea of Fourth Man being someone mysterious hanging around at the edges of the story. But Avery has some problems here that I'm trying to work through here: 1. If Avery's so smart, why didn't he raise Imperius during his first trial? Did he really just not want to look bad next to the Really Tough Lestranges? Somehow, I think that if you've got a defense you think you can pull off, you don't wait until after you're convicted and in prison to try it. 2. Has anyone expounded on just how Avery was supposed to have been sprung from Azkaban after being convicted? (I could not find any such discussion in the archives.) It seems unlikely that the MOM, given its taste for convictions and disregard for due process, would have been particularly interested in appeals from convicted DEs, regardless of the unfairness of the tribunals. Even after some time had passed, the wounds inflicted by Voldemort and the DEs on the wizarding populace are still readily apparent -- most wizards can't even say his name. I imagine they would like to keep all the convicts locked away forever. Nothing in the Pensieve trials indicates that they'd be interested in giving someone a second trial. Even if they did do such things, surely Avery couldn't have claimed that new evidence had come to light, since a person seems to be aware of the imposition of the Imperius Curse (witness Harry's class). I think it would be tough for a convicted DE to sell an Imperius defense. Unless, of course, he got someone really clever to raise an appeal based on the fact that the defendants were not allowed to testify on their own behalf. Also, Sirius could be wrong about how Avery got off (and it could be as it's based on what he heard). In that case, he could've gotten out the way Karkaroff got off -- by making a freedom-for-information deal. Otherwise, to be sprung, Avery needs one of 2 things - either a legal advocate - something I've seen no sign of - or someone with money and connections on the outside, and someone who can be bought on the inside. 3. If someone went to all this trouble to get Avery out of Azkaban, shouldn't he have done something in return for it? Even Lucius attempted to revive Tom Riddle. (There's another question I have -- did Pettigrew not tell Voldemort of this episode? Surely he was aware of it if he spent his time with Ron?) Avery, it seems, has not repaid his debt - after all the help he got -- by going in search of Voldemort. And why the sudden change of heart? For someone who continued bravely on after Voldemort's defeat, then goes to the trouble of getting sprung from Azkaban (presumably with outside help), he seems to have gotten an enormous case of cold feet. Possibly a short stint in Azkaban convinced him that he'd better wait for a sign that Voldemort was still alive before risking capture again. > But wait a minute. If (i) Sirius is wrong, and Avery sleazed out of Azkaban some way other than Imperius, or (ii) he got a retrial because the Council got remorse about forgetting to get testimony from Crouch & Co. (after Crouch had "died" perhaps), or (iii) corruption prevailed in the Ministry, and (iv) a small taste of Azkaban was enough for Avery to give up his pursuit of Voldemort, then Fourth Man Avery makes sense. Cindy: So what is the yard-stick by which success as a DE is measured? Voldemort seems to think it is loyalty. But I'm not sure. To the extent Voldemort has gotten hacked off at his DEs, it is incompetence that sets him off, maybe even more than simple lack of loyalty. I think loyalty, or more accurately lack of faith in him (another religious parallel here) is how he measures the DE's. Those present were all unfaithful, and can make it up only by doing penance, LOTS of it. After all, all of the DEs in the graveyard were disloyal and left Voldemort to drift along as a vapor for 13 years or so. Didn't bother them one bit. But Voldemort doesn't torture them, one by one. No, he tortures Avery (as head DE?). The other torture of a DE we see is Wormtail, who is tortured for incompetence (letting Crouch Sr. escape). Everyone else will get theirs; I am sure of this. They will pay in hideous ways, as Wormtail has paid. Voldemort will make Avery's Cruciatus look like a frolic in the park. This is why I think Avery is smart. Cindy: Now, where did this idea come from that invoking the Imperius Curse as a sham defense is cowardly? Well, the defense itself isn't cowardly. Voldemort's rap on Lucius, for example, isn't that he claimed Imperius. It's that the only reason for doing that is to devote your life to finding and resurrecting Voldemort and neither he nor Avery did so. Eloise (about Wormtail severing his hand): >The most noble and > self-sacrificing thing we've seen a DE do so far is Wormtail cutting off his > hand and not everyone thinks even *that's* Tough. (For the record, I have to > agree with the person who said that they couldn't do it if their >life > depended on it.) Cindy: Well, it freaks me out to push back my cuticles, so I feel safe predicting I'd have trouble hacking off limbs. But that's just me. But that's the difference between you two and Pettigrew. You are Tough but noble. You wouldn't hack off your hand for Voldemort even if you knew the price for refusing was death. Pettigrew made the easy choice, which is why I think it was not brave. What if your hand got stuck in a door as it was being shut to prevent deadly poison from escaping, and opening the door to release your hand would cause you and your companions to be overcome with poison gas. Would you do it then? Even if you were wearing a gas mask? I thought so. That would be brave. And finally, I just discovered that Charis Julia has provided a raft of new and exciting Fourth Man variants, including: > 7) Backstabbing Fourth Man: > > Now. How do you think the Longbottom's Cruciators were caught, huh? > Ahhh, that's right. Clever Grownup. Got it in one. Avery pulled a > Pettigrew. He turned them in. That's how he got off light, you > understand. Cut a deal with the Ministry. > This seems to fit my first alternative around my Fourth Man legal issues. And Charis Julia thought she was joking! Debbie, who ran across a tax case today involving - no joke - Crouch and Pettigrew. Is it possible that among their other sins they have not satisfied their obligations to the wizarding revenue authorities? [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmmears at prodigy.net Wed May 1 03:22:11 2002 From: jmmears at prodigy.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 03:22:11 -0000 Subject: Good/Bad characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38354 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cygnusff" wrote: > Crouch Sr, Trelawney, Fudge, and Draco and friends are interesting > cases. Trelawney seems self-obsessed rather than plain nasty; she > might not do many 'good' things, but I can't see any 'evil' things > she's done either (as opposed to plain annoying). Crouch Sr. does > show some good motives (although only when he really has no other > choice). Fudge - I agree, it's hard to categorise him. Draco and > friends; well, at this moment it seems to me that Draco is heading > Lucius' way, but as I'm a controversial evil!Draco-theorist in the > same line as Keith Fraser, I'll leave this one out. I'm pretty suspicious of Trelawney. She's been portrayed as a total flake overall, who doesn't seem to have the respect of any of her colleagues, or of the students (other than Parvati & Lavender). She always seems to delight in demoralizing Harry in particular, but when she made her *real* prediction about the dark lord rising, I began to wonder. No one but death eaters ever seem to refer to him as the dark lord. What is a controversial evil!Draco-theorist? Have I missed a thread? I thought that evil Draco was pretty much canon. Is canon controversial now? Jo Serenadust From nobradors at hotmail.com Wed May 1 00:00:42 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (nuriaobradors) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 00:00:42 -0000 Subject: Impossible timetable Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38355 I'm starting to write a fanfic and I needed a more comprehensive look on the school timetables. So I took PoA and started to analize it looking for answers... and unless I'm very mistaken, it turns out that either all teachers (or most of them) use timeturners, or there are more teachers than canon states, or JKR simply failed to see an impossible schedule. Usually, the kids have 2 classes during the morning, then Lunch, then another class (perhaps 2?). After thorough reading, I could come with the following: First day of classes: - Divination/Arithmancy/Muggle Studies (apparently with Hufflepuff, as Ernie MacMillan tells Ron Hermione hasn't missed a class) - Transfiguration =lunch= - Care of Magical Creatures (with Slytherin) Now maybe some british members can bring some light here: Is September 1st the first day of school in britain whatever day of the week it falls into? Sept 1st was wednesday in 1993 when PoA takes place - So if students took the Hogwarts express that day, the first day of school would have been thursday, Sept. 2. Yet we know they have Potions on thursday (PoA7), so it's more likely they got to Hogwarts on Aug. 31 thus starting lessons on Sept 1st. Thursday schedule: - Potions (with Slytherin) =lunch= - DADA Yet in PoA9 Snape asks the werewolf essay "for monday morning" suggesting (and supported by PoA10) than Monday's schedule is the same as Thursday. Hence it has no sense Snape's request for "monday morning" since they complain about it to Lupin on monday afternoon! And since he says they need not to write the essay, it's obvious Snape didn't ask them to surrender it Potions. >From PoA15 we can deduce: Tuesday? or Friday? schedule: - Arithmancy / CoMC - Charms =lunch= -Divination We don't know when History of magic, Ancient Runes and Herbology are placed in the timetable (I don't count Astronomy bc we know it's lectured late at night). We know they have Transfiguration after Herbology (PoA8). It is mentioned nowhere whether or not do they have any class after the first afternoon class, though it seems they haven't. (And naturally I can speak only for the Gryffindors).This would give us a hourly load (gee I don't even know if there is a word in english for that, I hope you understand what I mean) per week as follows: Potions: 4 DADA: 2 Divination: 2 CoMC: 2 Arithmancy: 2 Charms: 1 Transfiguration: 1 Muggle Studies: 1 Herbology: 1 or 2 (it's double in CoS and GoF, but in PoA8 Transfiguration comes right after it so it can't be double) History of Magic: unknown Ancient Runes: unknown IMHO, it's more likely the last two have only 1 hour/week, while I find it unlikely that two major subjects as Charms and Transfiguration have only 1 hour/week. OTOH, I find 4 hours of potions a little excessive, even in the complexity of the subject. It's not unlikely, though, that all comes down to JKR's mistaking the days of the week. For example, When Lavender cries for her dead bunny between classes, the 16th of october...it was saturday in 1993! (PoA8) It is possible to making up a hypothetical timetable *for gryffindor* cramming up the total 11 subjects (with more than one hour/week some of them) into the 15 classes scheme. Here's an example: Monday: double Potions/lunch/DADA Tuesday: Arithmancy-CoMC/Charms/lunch/Divination-Ancient Runes Wednesday: Divination-MuggleStudies- Arithmancy/Transfiguration/lunch/CoMC Thursday: double Potions/lunch/DADA - or what about, Charms/Potions/lunch/DADA? Friday: Herbology/Transfiguration/lunch/History of Magic I don't even wanna risk it to coordinate these with the other 3 houses' timetables. *BUT* it gets from tricky to impossible when it comes to analizing the timetable from the teachers pov. It's simple mathematics: 4 houses per 7 years= 28 classes. (20 for the subjects starting in 3rd year). How do you cram 28 classes in 15 class modules? Ok, they're less than 28 actually bc some classes are paired with another house, but this doesn't happen with ALL the subjects. Let alone Astronomy: 14 classes (assuming they've paired houses for it) in 5 weekday nights? Even having two classes the same night (like, one at 10pm and the other at 11 or something), it's crazy. Any feedback's welcome! Nuri who, needless to say, in order to keep her sanity while writing her fanfic, has only made up Harry's year and the OC teacher timetables. ;-) From nobradors at hotmail.com Wed May 1 00:57:02 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?N=FAria_Obradors_Pi?=) Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2002 21:57:02 -0300 Subject: Good/bad characters/Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38357 Barb said: >Thoughts? Can anyone think of a "bad" person who has actually done >something good without an ulterior motive? I admit I am still >unsure where to slot Fudge--he seems full of ulterior motives, >frankly, and I'm not convinced one nice thing he did for or said to >Harry in PoA was genuine. I unfortunately know a couple of *mean* people. There are two things common to bad people: 1) they don't believe they're bad; and 2) they never do anything nice without ulterior motives. So IMO it's perfectly normal the baddies who seem to do good things have ulterior motives to do so. About Fudge, I don't think he's bad - it's not like he rejoys with other people miseries (real or not) like Volde or Malfoy. But he's also too faulty to be good -too stubborn, too proud and too pendant of public opinion. ******** Katherine wrote about Snape and Lupin: >I doubt that Snape's hate for Lupin comes out of suspecting that >Lupin was in on it. Snape has typical prejudices against Lupin being >a werewolf, but I don't think that was his only reason for hating >him, since the Snape and Sirius hate had reached levels that couldn't >be reached unless this had been going on for a long time. I don't >know what these other things could be. Anyone have suggestions? I think that Snape probably regrets Lupin being such great friends with popular James and Sirius, despite being a werewolf. IMHO, I don't think the cunning nature of Slytherins, along with the high concept they have on themselves, helps them build true, honest friendship. To Snape's proud and prejudiced mind, it must be inconceivable that a monster such as the werewolf is having better friends than he's got. Naturally, this is all but my speculations. Nuri leaving to eat supper - Tripe and tail stew! Yummy! From southernscotland at yahoo.com Wed May 1 02:16:45 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 02:16:45 -0000 Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38358 > The rest of Slytherin House had nothing to do with that. Yes, I > know that each student's actions reflect on their house -- but > that's what the points system is for. The Slytherins deserved to > lose the House Cup because of Draco's actions. They did *not* > deserve to have their faces rubbed in it in front of the whole > school. And Snape, in particular, did not deserve to be jerked > around by his boss in front of all his colleagues. > > Marina > rusalka at i... I totally agree with this. It struck me even more in the Movie-Which- Must-Not-Be-Named. The Slytherin flag stunt seemed unnecessarily cruel. And how would you like to be in a House which was booed at every Quidditch match? Although I don't think this will happen, it would be quite interesting if, in one of the future books, JKR does point out the discrimination against the Slytherins, which is quite unfair at times. Another point: some of us do think that the HP books have a religious undertone, and when it is finished, we will be able to know more about this. "Good" and "evil" are talked about in much of the same ways in the Bible. For example, doing what one knows in one's heart to be right, rather than doing the right thing, but for the wrong reason. I've remarked before on Manipulator Dumbledore. I agree with those who think it was definitely not a "good" thing to put 11-year-olds in danger. About Fudge: I think he may turn out to be one of the more interesting characters in the book series. To me, he seems to be the most like some of us Muggles, hiding our heads in the sand. At what point will he eat enough dirt? About opposites: how about Fred and George? At some point, might they make different decisions, rather than always being Gred and Forge? One other thing: awhile back, immediately after 9/11, Barb talked about terrorism and its role in the books. Of course, the books are much more relevant now. I wonder if that might be one of the reasons that JKR is taking such a long time with this particular book. As a thoughtful and sensitive individual, she could be second-guessing herself and her plot lines, though I do not think she would change them. Just a thought. lilahp From gideoner4 at yahoo.com Wed May 1 06:15:21 2002 From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (queen_of_slytherin) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 06:15:21 -0000 Subject: Uneven Divison of Number of Students Per House--A Possibility Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38361 Something just came over me...pardon me if this has been discussed. What if all students in a year are concentrated in one or two houses? The Sorting Hat sorts according where someone is fit to be in. Even if there are a hundred or so students in one year, if they are all fit to be in Slytherin, they will all be in that house. Do you think there is such a case that only about one or two students will be sorted in one house together in a year? Like out of one hundred students, fifty are in Slyth, forty are in Hufflepuff, eight are in Ravenclaw, and two in Gryffindor. It can happen, if the Sorting Hat exclusively sorts strictly based on either a student's choice and/or personality. Or do you think that the Sorting Hat has some sort of a counter so it can subdivide more or less equally all the students in the four houses? But suppose there is a counter, with which the Sorting Hat is enchanted to subdivide the number of students equally. Then I think that defeats the purpose of having a Sorting Hat, because the sorting will be based primarily on numbers. Unless all students wear the Hat first one by one strictlly for evaluation. After everyone has worn the Hat, the Hat processes, compares, and ranks the students. But as we have read in canon, the Sorting Hat doesn't do that. After a student wears the Hat the first time, the house that the Hat screams out will be his/her house for good. So what do you think? There might be a possibility of uneven proportions between numbers of students of each house. Thank you. :) From catlady at wicca.net Wed May 1 06:25:47 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 06:25:47 -0000 Subject: Thought about Draco/Harry [was: Snape and James Potter's relationship In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38362 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > Do you have any examples of that? I don't have the books with me > here, either, and I can't recall any instances when Harry > deliberately provoked Draco at a time when Draco was just leaving > well enough alone. One of the events being discussed in the other current thread fits that description: Draco and his companions were just hanging around, gawking at the Shrieking Shack, when Harry took advantage of his Invisibility Cloak to fling mud at them. From siskiou at earthlink.net Wed May 1 07:06:06 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 00:06:06 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Thought about Draco/Harry [was: Snape and James Potter's relationship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <78120778140.20020501000606@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38363 Hi, Tuesday, April 30, 2002, 11:25:47 PM, catlady_de_los_angeles wrote: > One of the events being discussed in the other current thread fits > that description: Draco and his companions were just hanging around, > gawking at the Shrieking Shack, when Harry took advantage of his > Invisibility Cloak to fling mud at them. But they weren't just hanging around the shack, IIRC, they were taunting Ron. I've always wondered where this incident would have led to, if Harry hadn't been there. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Wed May 1 08:14:53 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 08:14:53 -0000 Subject: More on Fourth Man / Avery In-Reply-To: <14a.d32aa46.2a00b68c@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38364 For the benefit of our viewers who just tuned in, there has been a bunch of "Fourth Man" theories, which posit that Avery was the Fourth Man (i.e, fourth defendant) in the Pensieve scene where Crouch Jr. is sentenced to Azkaban. (The other two defendants aren't named, but most people believe they are Mr. and Mrs. Lestrange.) Charis Julia presented a wide variety of new Fourth Man theories to satisfy the cravings of a Fourth Man-starved world, including Fourth Man with Serious Peversion and Fourth Man With Slashy SHIP. I propose that Charis Julia's eight new variants be collectively known as "Over the Top Fourth Man." I thought they were great, by the way. Also, it might reassure you, Charis Julia, to know that Elkins had previously proposed that Avery enjoyed being crucio'd. In a discussion that took place off of this list, I used the following made up example: "The tugboat was gaining on her, fast. Her precious barge, the SS Fourth Man with RSVP, was in danger." I'm a bit disapointed that no one has yet come up with a theory that would be "Fourth Man with RSVP." Could someone here oblige? Debbie (elfundeb) said: > So I can accept Tough Guy Avery, Up and Coming DE Avery, Cunning > Avery. But I've been having trouble with the Fourth Man part of it. Debbie then listed various problems with the theory that Avery was the Fourth Man in the Pensieve scene. Yep, I can't accept that Avery was the Fourth Man in the Pensieve scene, either. In fact, I've been dying for ages to ask whether people *really* believe that the Fourth Man was Avery, or if the whole "Fourth Man is Avery" thing is just a joke. Why don't I think Avery is the Fourth Man? Simple. First of all, the Fourth Man, whoever he was, was sentenced to *life* in Azkaban. That means he is still there, or, more likely, died there. And, Sirius said that *almost* all of Snape's "gang" were Death Eaters. The only one not convicted of being a Death Eater was Avery, who got off by pleading Imperiatus. I take this to mean that Avery was *never* convicted of being a Death Eater and *never* was sent to Azkaban. Otherwise, Sirius would have said something like "All of Snape's friends were Death Eaters, although Avery eventually got out of Azkaban by pleading Imperiatus." I mean, it's not like Sirius is going to cut Snape's friends a break. So, I conclude that the Fourth Man rotted away in Azkaban, and that Avery never went to Azkaban; therefore, Avery was *not* the Fourth Man in the Pensieve scene. However, I love all these detailed theories about Avery. It's wonderful that people here can come up with a full biography, not to mention an in-depth psychoanalysis, on the basis of seven words of dialogue, a passing mention, and a few shrieks. Impressed!Judy PS: Non-sequitur to Dave: Pettigrew was born in the year of the Silver-Handed Rat, obviously. (Well, it *was* the Year of the Metal Rat.) From katgirl at lava.net Wed May 1 07:36:28 2002 From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 07:36:28 -0000 Subject: Professor Sinistra's schedule. (Was: Re: Impossible timetable) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38365 Quoting Nuri: > Let alone Astronomy: > 14 classes (assuming they've paired houses for it) in 5 weekday > nights? Even having two classes the same night (like, one at 10pm and > the other at 11 or something), it's crazy. Yes. I haven't thought of this before, but I find it unlikely that Professor Sinistra spends her (His? For the sake of simplicity, I'll be referring to Sinistra as a she.) whole week teaching for who-knows how many late hours, and then manages to show up at every feast and celebration. However, this IS possible. The simplest way out is that she might be able to get by on a few hours of sleep, but that causes even more doubt that she'd be at all the feasts and ceremonies, much less dance the two step with a partner who has a wooden leg. So let's say she does sleep for a decent amount of time, and her last class leaves at 2. She has to spend about two hours packing everything up and getting to her house/sleeping quarters/etc. It's possible that she does this on broom, or casts a spell to aid with clearing up, but while the spell is a possibility, it's early in the morning, and flying around on broom might wake someone up, and I don't think that someone will be happy. In a third possibility, however, one that doesn't require her to travel, she might merely sleep in the Astronomy tower. This is might be a bit drafty in the winter, but who knows, maybe the tower is spelled to be warmer. In any event, she goes to sleep about 2-4 in the morning. Let's say she sleeps for 9 hours. She wakes up at about noon. That's not too bad. She might sleep in a bit late, or work on lesson plans, or even just indulge in a bit of free time, but in any event, she freshens up at some point and wanders down to the Great Hall at lunch. (We never have had evidence that she goes in for breakfast-actually, we've never had evidence that she goes in for regular meals at all.) So she eats her breakfast there, perhaps eating a bit more than everyone else to stave her over to lunch, and then goes back to sleeping/working/indulging until dinner. At dinner, she eats, taking extra helpings if she didn't at lunchtime, then goes back to the Astronomy tower to set up the lesson, if she hasn't already. (If she has already, I think you can guess what she does. ^_^) Then she teaches her lessons starting at about 11 or 12 and running to 2, and goes through it all over again. Now, the question is, how do the STUDENTS manage? They have time between dinner and 11, and have time after their last class of the afternoon to do homework and other such things, (Other things, which, I guess, could include sleeping) and I don't think there are that many assignments on Astronomy, (I'm pretty certain one was mentioned, but that might have been Divination-star charts and so on.) but they, can't use the sleeping schedule Sinistra does. You really have to wonder what the ones that leave at 2 do. On a final note, do you think Divination students have to keep up the Astronomy classes? Divination does cover Astrology, and while these are not the same thing, they might be close enough by wizard standards. What do you think? "Katherine" From mike_wiltse at yahoo.com Wed May 1 07:46:51 2002 From: mike_wiltse at yahoo.com (mike_wiltse) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 07:46:51 -0000 Subject: (algorithmic) Sorting Hat In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38366 Regant4 said: > Would this work in a single pass (as the Sorting Hat makes)? Suppose > of the 28 new students, all of whom would perfectly fit into > Gryfindor, the last 10 are heirs of Gryfindor himself (Ron's future > younger brothers ? dectets ;-). By the time the hat gets to them > Gryfindor is already full, or nearly so, and they have to be put in > other houses! Surely some mistake. > > So either > 1) The intake is so large that such anomalies are very unlikely (I > think JKR says that Hogwarts has over a thousand students) > 2) The sorting hat is magic > 3) The sorting hat gets a sneak look at the students as they arrive > and so can guess the numbers falling into each house, and set its > house boundaries accordingly to balance numbers. > > I believe it is magic, and that it assigns students to the houses > they will flourish in. If in an odd year everyone ends up in > Hufflepuff, then the school has to live with that. There is supposedly a book somewhere that records all the births of all the wizards/witches as they are born. It is possible that the hat already knows and has presorted them into a class. Family, actions, behavior, are all looked at then presorted. The sorting cerimony as the final look into the person, to make sure it has made the right choice. With over a thousand students I doubt it would be nessecary, your right that odds would even out with 150 new students every year. It didnt seem that large to me for some reason. Since she only mentions about 8 students in Harry's year in his house, I was thinking there were only roughly 250 students in the school. Either way I doubt that the hat is just a magic hat that in essence determines which of the main house qualities a student has in the greatest quantity. She wrote to much character into the sorting hat to allow me to believe that. She in fact wrote more charcter into the hat than she did for most of the people we meet during the books. "Hmm," said a small voice in his ear. "Difficult. Very difficult. Plenty of courage, I see. Not a bad mind either. There's talent, A my goodness, yes -- and a nice thirst to prove yourself, now that's interesting.... So where shall I put you?" Just look at what the hat is doing here. Its judging him but specifically asks him where he wants to go. "Not Slytherin, eh?" said the small voice. "Are you sure? You could be great, you know, it's all here in your head, and Slytherin will help you on the way to greatness, no doubt about that -- no? Well, if you're sure -- better be GRYFFINDOR!" Here she is either having the hat make fun of Harry, or judging on some kind of scale which Harry has more of, but the hat doesnt try very hard to convince him. And we all have to face it that either A) The Sorting Hat is a complete failure and can't really judge people. B) The Sorting Hat does not sort students only by the houses qualities. C) The Sorting Hat adds people into a house so they can help shape the people who most deserve to be in that house. Hermonie Ron Cedric Neville Wormtail Percy All of these people show signs of the other houses in greater quantities than in the house they ended up in. Try looking at the actions of these people and think about where you would put them. There has to be something more to what the hat does, unless of course I am wrong and it is just a prop. "Mike" From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed May 1 08:56:47 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 08:56:47 -0000 Subject: Impossible timetable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38367 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "nuriaobradors" wrote: > I'm starting to write a fanfic and I needed a more comprehensive look > on the school timetables. So I took PoA and started to analize it > looking for answers... and unless I'm very mistaken, it turns out > that either all teachers (or most of them) use timeturners, or there > are more teachers than canon states, or JKR simply failed to see an > impossible schedule. > > Usually, the kids have 2 classes during the morning, then Lunch, then > another class (perhaps 2?). After thorough reading, I could come with > the following: This subject has been discussed several times since I joined. I've never joined (and therefore, this is actually my own theories, so they will probably have holes). First off, let me make four general commemts. 1) Each "slot" takes more than an hour. If we assume that lessons start at 9 o'clock, than they would be eatting at 11 o'clock which is a bit too soon. (I like two-hour slots, which makes potions a torture) 2) There are more than 3 slots a day, except maybe one day or two, like, for example, Wednesday. This would allow for two or maybe three slots in the afternoon. This is the French system, which takes us: 3) There is no reason to assume that there are no classes on Saturdays (my father, who attended a boarding school, tells me that this was so in his school). Again, it fits with the French system, which has school on Saturday mornings (I think). 4) JKR's rules of reality imply that, in any case, the nominal day of the week is one down from the real day of the week in our world. Check dates of PS: we are told that Harry's birthday (31st July) takes place on a Tuesday and, if it was 1991 it should've been Wednesday. > Yet in PoA9 Snape asks the werewolf essay "for monday morning" > suggesting (and supported by PoA10) than Monday's schedule is the > same as Thursday. Hence it has no sense Snape's request for "monday > morning" since they complain about it to Lupin on monday afternoon! > And since he says they need not to write the essay, it's obvious > Snape didn't ask them to surrender it Potions. One of my teachers always insisted that we had the work done by morning of the day he had to give it in, even if we only saw him at 3 o'clock in the aternoon. This was to encourage working the days before, instead of doing it between clases (which most of the people did, anyway) > IMHO, it's more likely the last two have only 1 hour/week, while I > find it unlikely that two major subjects as Charms and > Transfiguration have only 1 hour/week. OTOH, I find 4 hours of > potions a little excessive, even in the complexity of the subject. > It's not unlikely, though, that all comes down to JKR's mistaking the > days of the week. For example, When Lavender cries for her dead bunny > between classes, the 16th of october...it was saturday in 1993 Look at notes 2) and 3). That should give you more play with the year's and clases hours, putting a few of the important ones in the afternoon slots. Oh, and note 4) covers the "Lavender crisis": in Potterverse, it happened in a Friday (even if ther ARE subjects on Saturdays). Finally, I've always though that you need long hours of Potions because of all the waiting that's implied in it: "wait until it boils", "wait until it turns yellow", that sort of thing. It used to go on for ages, the chemical labs. > *BUT* it gets from tricky to impossible when it comes to analizing > the timetable from the teachers pov. It's simple mathematics: 4 > houses per 7 years= 28 classes. (20 for the subjects starting in 3rd > year). How do you cram 28 classes in 15 class modules? Ok, they're > less than 28 actually bc some classes are paired with another house, > but this doesn't happen with ALL the subjects. Let alone Astronomy: > 14 classes (assuming they've paired houses for it) in 5 weekday > nights? Even having two classes the same night (like, one at 10pm and > the other at 11 or something), it's crazy. > Any feedback's welcome! The conclussion is that there is somehting very FLINTy about the timetables, but that's because JKR hasn't created enough teachers or has divided the school in too many clases: 4/year against some 10-something teachers is just too many for too few. > Nuri > who, needless to say, in order to keep her sanity while writing her > fanfic, has only made up Harry's year and the OC teacher > timetables. ;-) Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed May 1 09:11:57 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 09:11:57 -0000 Subject: Avery, Mrs Lestrange, FLINT-y justice, character depth, canon controversy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38368 CharisJulia: >In FMWSP Avery is in fact a real sicko with a twisted appetite for Cruciatus Blasts. You know. . . pain and pleasure are all the same and all that Hey! I said that first! See OT #10545! So, no, Charis, you didn't make it up. You just forgot where you read it. CharisJulia again: >Mrs Lestrange has. . . she has. . . well, in greek I'd say she has * tipos*, but I honestly have no idea how to translate that. Pizzazz? Spark? Flare? Personality? Ahhh, I give up. The word you are looking for is charisma. I agree she is dead sexy. Cindy, about the Pensieve trials: > I have never been able to make sense of that scene. I actually find it rather FLINT-y. Cindy, I thought you were just joking, but it seems to have become a serious subject of discussion. I can well believe that the Pensieve trials are directly based on material JKR saw when she worked for Amnesty International. Does the apparent lack of due process really make these scenes unconvincing? Barb: >That was my point precisely. I was not trying to classify "types" of "bad" characters. The folks I term "bad" characters are people we've never known to do ANY good at all. I still contend that Crouch, Sr. has never done anything good without an ulterior motive. He put his son away even with inadequate evidence for the sake of his career (even though this did turn out to be the right thing to do). He engineered the switch between his wife and son, which was categorically the WRONG thing to do and cannot therefore count as a good act. I think there are some distinctions to be made here, between *complex*, *conflicted* and *morally conflicted* characters. I think that Crouch Sr is clearly conflicted: he is torn between his public persona and his wife, as well as, IMO, complex and strong feelings for his son. He may not be morally conflicted in the Pensieve scene, in the sense that moral and ethical considerations (and therefore the idea of 'redeeming features') do not enter his inner conflict. However, I would suggest that Crouch Sr's final attempts to reach Dumbledore are a textbook case of redemption. The word originally related to buying freedom from slavery, either for yourself or for another, and then came to be applied religiously. He has seen the error of his ways and strives to make restitution. He struggles against the bondage that his own actions have placed him in, and begins to break free. If this were a Christian allegory (I don't believe it is), the angels would be rejoicing in heaven. Again, a character such as Fudge is, IMO, complex. I believe his friendliness to Harry is motivated both by political considerations (be nice to celebrities) and by a genuine desire to be friendly to people in general which is part of his make-up. He just doesn't let this friendliness get in the way of what to him are greater priorities. He may not be conflicted and may not have any redeeming characteristics but he can still be complex. In summary, I agree (with the exception of Crouch) it is hard to find a character who is mostly evil with a 'bit' of good, but I disagree that therefore these characters have no depth. Finally (couldn't resist) Jo Serenadust asked: >Is canon controversial now? No, of course not. Could you imagine people burning copies of HP? Silly idea! Would distinguished journalists waste ink bemoaning that HP's popularity is a sign of our current malaise? Perish the thought! Even the Internet, that home of flames and abuse, can come up with no more than 40,000 me-too posts saying I luv Harry. David From mike_wiltse at yahoo.com Wed May 1 08:49:27 2002 From: mike_wiltse at yahoo.com (mike_wiltse) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 08:49:27 -0000 Subject: Impossible timetable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38369 > Usually, the kids have 2 classes during the morning, then Lunch, then > another class (perhaps 2?). After thorough reading, I could come with > the following: I always assumed that when she wrote "double potions" she meant simply that the class was shared with another house, not that it took twice as long. I also assumed that most days there were 4 classes with 1 or 2 days a week there was a free period (I will try to find the quote on that.) Ok here comes a LONG nasty quote -------------------------- "Harry looked up at the staff table. There seemed to be rather more empty seats there than usual. Hagrid, of course, was still fighting his way across the lake with the first years; Professor McGonagall was presumably supervising the drying of the entrance hall floor, but there was another empty chair too, and Harry couldn't think who else was missing. "Where's the new Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher?" said Hermione, who was also looking up at the teachers. They had never yet had a Defense Against the Dark Arts teacher who had lasted more than three terms. Harry's favorite by far had been Professor Lupin, who had resigned last year. He looked up and down the staff table. There was definitely no new face there. "Maybe they couldn't get anyone!" said Hermione, looking anxious. Harry scanned the table more carefully. Tiny little Professor Flitwick, the Charms teacher, was sitting on a large pile of cushions beside Professor Sprout, the Herbology teacher, whose hat was askew over her flyaway gray hair. She was talking to Professor Sinistra of the Astronomy department. On Professor Sinistra's other side was the sallow-faced, hook-nosed, greasy-haired Potions master, Snape - Harry's least favorite person at Hogwarts. Harry's loathing of Snape was matched only by Snape's hatred of him, a hatred which had, if possible, intensified last year, when Harry had helped Sirius escape right under Snape's overlarge nose - Snape and Sirius had been enemies since their own school days. On Snape's other side was an empty seat, which Harry guessed was Professor McGonagall's. Next to it, and in the very center of the table, sat Professor Dumbledore, the headmaster, his sweeping silver hair and beard shining in the candlelight, his magnificent deep green robes embroidered with many stars and moons." ----------------- GoF C12 7 Teachers (Trelawney never eats at the table, and Binns doesnt need to eat) that I know of. But if you read the above carefully, Is she reading off the names on both sides of Dumbledore or only one side? I think its only 1 because mrs hooch isnt mentioned. Moody DADA Hagrid CoMC McGonnagal TF Snape Potion Flitwick Charm Sprout Herb Sinistra Astronomy Trelawney Astrology Binns History Hooch Flying ??? So 10 so far There has to be at least 3 more although not every one will have every teacher. Either way with 28 classes slots a week (not all are filled) with double classes in a single slot to make more room I think it would all fit. You could probably fit them all into 21 slots (3 a day) if you crammed enough into doubles, Harry has at least 3 doubles , CoMC, Potions, Herbology, (was astrology double?) Also each years schedulle is different, they mention getting them the first morning. All this is probably wrong please feel free to correct me =) From kerelsen at quik.com Wed May 1 12:32:45 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 08:32:45 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Impossible timetable References: Message-ID: <003401c1f10c$4ff76740$c389d5d1@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 38370 "grey_wolf_c" wrote a nice discussion on classes on Saturdays and so forth... One thing I haven't seen mentioned was something that happens in my daughter's school. She goes on what is called a "block schedule." All of her classes are an hour and a half long, but instead of having the same classes every single day, they are on a six day rotation. She has some classes on days 1, 3 and 5, others on days 2, 4 and 6, and a couple of electives that are held only once in the 6 day cycle. Using a 3 day cycle might fit in enough class hours, or may not... but would explain how they could have Potions on Thursday this week and again on Monday... Also, I remember having scheduled "Study Periods" when I was in school too (I hated them unless I could get a library pass! It's hard to study when the idiot across from you is jabbering with his mate and tossing spit wads at you...) Example using HP classes: Day 1 Divination/Arithmancy Transfiguration Lunch Care of Magical Creatures Day 2 Double Potions Lunch DADA possible elective classes or study period Day 3 Charms Study Period Lunch Ancient Runes Etcetera... I'm not going to try to work out the whole schedule to include Saturdays, but it might help explain the problem. Also, while I know that there's disputes about the actual number of teachers at Hogwarts, it wouldn't surprise me to find there are other instructors who have not yet been named. Who teaches Muggle Studies? I don't recall seeing a name attached to that instructor. Who teaches Ancient Runes? Until we see Harry having to interact with these people, they'll probably not be identified. Also, who can say that there's not more elective classes for the more senior students that haven't actually been mentioned? While we read quite a bit about Fred and George and Percy in the first four books, we don't see anything about the classes they are taking. Remember, just because we haven't actually SEEN more than eight or nine named students at the sortings doesn't mean that there aren't 75 to 100 new kids every year... we are only seeing what Harry sees. Frankly the idea of having to wait for the Hat to Sort out that many kids makes the anticipatory waiting for the Sorting Feast make a LOT more sense to me... I remember sitting there, saying "Get on with it!" when I was watching my sister graduate from college a few years ago! And there wasn't a huge number of students going through the ceremony.... Overall, we'll just have to accept the inconsistencies unless JKR gets around to fixing the FLINTs... but it's still fun to figure them out! Bernadette (who really ought to create some sort of class schedule for the HP RPG she's involved in now that we're playing both Fourth and Fifth years...) "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 Edblanning at aol.com Wed May 1 13:35:14 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 09:35:14 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Wizarding World law/ More trouble with the Fourth Man Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38371 Olly takes me to task: > Eloise wrote > >>Yeah. That bit's really confusing isn't it? I think she meant to > write 'pass sentence' instead of 'pronounce judgment'. Crouch *does* << > > Ok, Im probably going to get shot down for this one, it almost being a one > liner but... pass sentence/pronounce Judgement = exact same thing. > > If my brains working correctly (which it's probably not considering the > time here) pass sentence=You are sentenced to do X punishment. Pronounce > Judgement is the same only its a case of You have been found guilty and > will do X punishment. > OK, what's *my* excuse for sloppy writing? Can't think of one. Except that I'm saving my intellectual powers for trying to explain the complexities of Egyptian chronology. All this HP stuff is just displacement activity, you know, putting off the evil hour and all that. I was interpreting 'judgement' as a judgement of guilt v. a judgement of innocence. I think it is more common usage to use the term 'pass sentence', but I concede that you have a valid point. Debbie and Judy Serenity seem to have rolled out a troublesome little ca(n)non: >Why don't I think Avery is the Fourth Man? Simple. First of all, the >Fourth Man, whoever he was, was sentenced to *life* in Azkaban. That >means he is still there, or, more likely, died there. And, Sirius >said that *almost* all of Snape's "gang" were Death Eaters. The only >one not convicted of being a Death Eater was Avery, who got off by >pleading Imperiatus. I take this to mean that Avery was *never* >convicted of being a Death Eater and *never* was sent to Azkaban. >Otherwise, Sirius would have said something like "All of Snape's >friends were Death Eaters, although Avery eventually got out of >Azkaban by pleading Imperiatus." I mean, it's not like Sirius is >going to cut Snape's friends a break. Mm...... Sirius says that Avery wormed his way out of trouble by pleading Imperius. It certainly does rather sound as if he was never convicted. Oh dear. Is the Fourth Man hovercraft letting on water? OTOH, Debbie gives hope: >But wait a minute. If (i) Sirius is wrong, and Avery sleazed out of Azkaban >some way other than Imperius, or (ii) he got a retrial because the Council >got remorse about forgetting to get testimony from Crouch & Co. (after Crouch >had "died" perhaps), or (iii) corruption prevailed in the Ministry, and (iv) >a small taste of Azkaban was enough for Avery to give up his pursuit of >Voldemort, then Fourth Man Avery makes sense. Sirius doesn't *have* to have been right, does he? And given the imprecise manner in which we've just seen legal procedings described, this *could* be a similar sort of thing. Although I'm not convinced. Even though Cornelius Fudge *Is* Ever so Evil. Which, if I'm not much mistaken, is in danger of taking us back to the Fourth Man as the third DE dead in Voldemort's service. Which seems a bit of a waste of a character, really. Can someone rescucitate him again, please? I like my birth on that hovercraft (and particularly the range of single malts lined up behind the bar!) Eloise (Who wishes she had enough imagination to come up with as many Fourth Man variants as Charis Julia and is intrigued and slightly shocked by the number of us who have come up with variants of Masochistic Fourth Man. Oh.... and is also rather touched by Debbie's characterisation of herself and Cindy as Tough and noble.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk Wed May 1 13:51:01 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk (Olwyn) Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 14:51:01 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Impossible timetable References: Message-ID: <000d01c1f117$3b3119e0$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 38372 Ok, I might as well chime in here although it'll probabyl just be going over old ground but... What I remember from my School days (geez that makes me sound old). Scottish schooling BTW. When we had double anything it was just that, a double lesson ie two classes one after the other. And believe me things like double maths could drag on and make it feel like it lasted allllll day. Study periods - Nup. Didnt get them. School was for the teaching, you studied at home. Only time we got any sort of free period was in the voluntary 6th year and that only happened depending on the number of subjects you were taking. We simply had 6 periods (lessons) a day, of an hour long each, although things like Phys Ed and (ugh) maths did have a tendency to get doubled up. Some classes did happen on a Saturday occasionally /but/ they were purely voluntary and only around exam times. very rare occurance, but it did happen. Every year we got a new timetable on the first day, and nothing was guaranteed to be in the same times or places as the previous year (especially after you'd chosen your subjects). Nor was it guaranteed you'd have the same teacher. We didnt have the same classes every day either (although every week was the same), but they did try to even it out so that every class you took had the same number of periods in one week. No elective classes either, you chose your subjects (3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th year high school in my case. You dont get to choose 1st or 2nd) and that was what you did, with the statutory Phys Ed chucked in just make you feel all shiny and happy - not! With the table thing (yep finally getting round to canon) by my reading of it I always assumed they were only reading off one side of the table, also that there were a number of empty seats indicating that not all the teachers arrive on the first day for whatever reason so there could potentially be another row of empty chairs not filled in with people yet (ok far fetched I agree, but possible maybe). I'm going to shut up now cause none of that probably made any sense, for which I apologise and will blame my new meds. :) Olly [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From huntleyl at mssm.org Wed May 1 14:26:25 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 10:26:25 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Impossible timetable References: Message-ID: <001c01c1f11c$2d11bcc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 38373 Mike said: >Moody DADA >Hagrid CoMC >McGonagall TF >Snape Potion >Flitwick Charm >Sprout Herb >Sinistra Astronomy >Trelawney Astrology >Binns History >Hooch Flying ??? >So 10 so far >There has to be at least 3 more although not every one >will have >every teacher. There's also Professor Vector of Arthimancy...And why couldn't Dumbledore be teaching some high-level (6th and 7th year?) classes? I don't find it that difficult to believe that there are other teachers who just haven't been mentioned thus far -- just because Harry hasn't thought about them to us ^_~. I mean, we never saw heads nor tails of that guy that Hagrid replaced until..well, he was actually replaced. Also, Madame Pomfrey...surely she teaches some practical healing-magic to kids wishing to go into the field. Sort of like an internship?? Or maybe healing is an upper-level class anyway -- kids aren't allowed to pick it up until they're older? Plus, there's got to be someone teaching Muggle Studies...And who does the Study of Ancient Runes? I can't remember if Hermione mentions the names.. hmmm laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From heidit at netbox.com Wed May 1 15:22:26 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy) Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 08:22:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020501152226.17056.qmail@web9506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38374 --- pippin_999 wrote: > Real-To: "pippin_999" > > You're disregarding, I think, how the Slytherins > came to be 150 > points ahead of Gryffindor in the first place...it > was because of > Draco Malfoy 's underhanded plot to catch them with > Norbert. It's > poetic justice for being a sneak. But that sort of flips right back to one of my initial questions in this thread: was Draco's reporting of Harry in PoA a good act, an evil act, or something else? Most posters, so far, have said that it wasn't an evil act - Harry was breaking a school rule in beingin Hogsmeade, and Draco was reporting on it. In PS/SS, again, Harry (and Hermione) were breaking a school rule (although for a "better" reason than Harry engaged in rule-breaking in Book 3) and Draco was reporting on it. Given that, IIRC, Gryffindor was 160 points down (in other words, Slytherin would've won by 10 even *if* Harry, Hermione and Neville hadn't lost points) going into the Leaving Feast, I still think that doing it then, instead of announcing it earlier - even at *lunch* that day - would've been less of a Nanny-nanny-boo-boo thing. Now, if they'd lost points for being out of their dorms the night they were supposed to have the wizards' duel, I'd agree with you completely. heidi __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed May 1 15:36:22 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 11:36:22 -0400 Subject: Vernon's backstory (was Harry's family) Message-ID: <6FB2240D.0B007173.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38375 Bernadette wrote: > I admit that I do wonder why Vernon is even more anti-Magic in > attitude than Petunia though... we get that incredibly > vituperative speech about Lily being a "freak" from her when > Hagrid comes to get Harry, but Vernon is the one who really goes > overboard in the ranting against the WW... Just WHY is he so > afraid of it? Beyond the "normal" fear of the unknown? Could > the Marauders have pulled a magical prank on him? Who knows... > but it's fun to speculate! Speculate? Who here would do such a thing? I have long maintained that there must be some secret in Vernon's life that accounts for his anti-magic attitude. Broadly speaking, there are two possibilities: that it is as Petunia's friend, fiance or spouse that he developed this attitude, or that it was their extreme anti-magic views that brought them together. The 'prank' idea is a special case of the first possibility - doubtless it will mysteriously inflate, acquire an acronym and a motley crew, and float off without apparent support. However, I prefer the second possibility, which requires Vernon to have a connection to the WW *independently of Petunia*. Is there any canon support for this? Let's see if we can narrow down the possibilities. Can we take the time-honoured approach of finding an irrelevant character who has not been named, and equating him with VD? Yes, indeed we can. Molly Weasley's cousin who is an accountant, of whom they never speak, simply leaps off the page. Consider the evidence: 1) VD is the Director of a firm that makes drills. But does he show any engineering knowledge? No, he does not. His various DIY attempts to keep Harry locked up are crude and pathetic. Furthermore, he is not Mr/Mrs/Miss Grunning, the firm's founder. In short, he is your typical second generation director, an *accountant* who has got the job on the flimsy excuse that cash flow is the life blood of any business. You've all seen it before. Just as most politicians turn out to be lawyers when you scratch the surface (Fudge is Way Evil, remember?), so most businessmen turn out to be accountants when you look behind the moustache. 2) At Kings Cross, who does Vernon eye suspiciously? Molly Weasley. Why? Because he suspects her of being a wizard? No, because he is worried she will *recognise* him. He is her cousin. He knows who she is. And this brings us to the third piece of evidence. 3) What could cause young Vernon Dursley to become so embittered? It's clear. Rejection, that's what. *We*, through Harry's POV, see the kind, tolerant, welcoming Weasleys. But Vernon has suffered from their dark side. As so often happens with liberal-minded people, the Weasleys love Muggles from a distance, but have no intention of letting one anywhere near their family. When Mrs Dursley Sr (nee Weasley - well, no, but possibly nee the same as Molly) married a Muggle and gave birth to a Muggle son, their wrath knew no bounds. They cut her off without a knut. In turn, she brought young Vernon up to have nothing to do with magic in any form. She sent him to Smeltings where a regime of cold baths and knobbly sticks could guarantee to knock any magical thought out of his head. She groomed him for that most unmagical of all professions, accountancy. 4) What unites Vernon and Petunia? Fear and hatred of magic. They are kindred souls. Look how much they have in common. Both from mixed Muggle-wizard families where the wizard side is unfairly honoured and the Muggle side despised. I think I have said more than enough to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Vernon is the unmentionable Weasley accountant. And notice one final, important consequence of this incontrovertible conclusion: Harry is *already* part of One Big Happy Weasley Family (OBHWF - who thought up that acronym? I can't pronounce it without eating a pillow first.). There is no need to construct elaborate romantic relationships to achieve this literarily desirable outcome. It is there from the start. 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 dicentra at xmission.com Wed May 1 18:29:51 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 18:29:51 -0000 Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38376 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: The Slytherins deserved to > lose the House Cup because of Draco's actions. They did *not* > deserve to have their faces rubbed in it in front of the whole > school. And Snape, in particular, did not deserve to be jerked > around by his boss in front of all his colleagues. > Hmmm. I don't think that Snape or the Slytherins or Dumbledore would take this position. First: Slytherin had been winning the house cup for several years running. Given Snape's propensity for randomly awarding and deducting points, and the Slytherin credo of ends justifies the means, it's highly likely their House Cup wins didn't come about by the most above-the-board means in the world. Undoubtedly, the other houses knew it, too, and had been chafing under the unfairness of it all for years. I also doubt Snape was terribly modest about the wins, especially in front of McGonagall. NO doubt the Slytherins had been rubbing everyone else's face in it. Second: Awarding the points at the final feast gives public credit to (a) Harry, despised of Snape, Draco, and probably all those whose parents were DEs; (b) Ron, a poverty-stricken, muggle-loving Weasley; (c) Hermione, a "mudblood"; and (d) Neville, also despised of Snape, son of an Auror, and apparent incompetent. The elitist Slyths need to know exactly who got the points and why. Third: If the Slytherins were going to cry "foul" at this juncture, they're certainly not going to say (or think), "Gee, Headmaster, it was so awfully insensitive of you to make us lose at the last minute in front of everyone. You should have been more sensitive to our feelings." They're more likely to protest that the points were awarded at all, especially to Neville. (But who's going to challenge Dumbledore?) Fourth: The public recognition was a gift to Harry in particular and also to Neville, who needs a pat on the back from time to time. (Not unlike Lupin publicly telling Snape that he's using Neville to demonstrate how to defeat Boggarts.) Fifth: Poetic justice aside, the Slytherins and Snape undoubtedly needed to be taken down a few pegs. In this, Dumbledore is actually doing them a favor, not an injustice. Allowing the Slyths to continue to win by cheating and then to lord it over the rest of the school wasn't doing much good for school morale. Do you really think the Slytherins went home to their mommies and cried about what a bully Dumbledore is? Do you think parents of Slyths sent owls protesting the humiliation of their children? No, the Slyths probably took it the way Slyths do: plotting how to get even. --Dicey, who is glad Dumbledore is in charge From piranhazonthemoon at yahoo.co.uk Wed May 1 18:55:28 2002 From: piranhazonthemoon at yahoo.co.uk (piranhazonthemoon) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 18:55:28 -0000 Subject: Made ya look! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38377 Hi I've never really posted that many messages on here and I couldn't think of a subject. I don't want anyone to take offence from this message. I have relapsed with lukaemia and was in hospital for a while so I fell behind with my reading. When I got home and got back on the internet I realised that I didn't want to read fanfiction anymore. I used to be really obsessed with Harry potter and HP fanfic but there is more to life. I just wanted to share this with you and really don't want to offend or annoy anyone, Yours Ingenious From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed May 1 19:16:10 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 19:16:10 -0000 Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38378 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > The Slytherins deserved to > > lose the House Cup because of Draco's actions. They did *not* > > deserve to have their faces rubbed in it in front of the whole > > school. And Snape, in particular, did not deserve to be jerked > > around by his boss in front of all his colleagues. > > > Hmmm. I don't think that Snape or the Slytherins or Dumbledore would > take this position. Well, we know Dumbledore didn't take this position, because if he did he wouldn't have done it. But do you really think Snape and the Slytherins all just nodded their heads and said, "Gosh, that's fair, we really had it coming?" > > First: Slytherin had been winning the house cup for several years > running. Given Snape's propensity for randomly awarding and deducting > points, and the Slytherin credo of ends justifies the means, it's > highly likely their House Cup wins didn't come about by the most > above-the-board means in the world. Undoubtedly, the other houses > knew it, too, and had been chafing under the unfairness of it all for > years. I also doubt Snape was terribly modest about the wins, > especially in front of McGonagall. NO doubt the Slytherins had been > rubbing everyone else's face in it. So give Gryffindor the Cup, announce it in the usual way -- before the Leaving Feast -- and let everybody gloat in the usual way. Pulling a bait-and-switch in the middle of the Feast was unnecessary and uncalled for. > > Second: Awarding the points at the final feast gives public credit to > (a) Harry, despised of Snape, Draco, and probably all those whose > parents were DEs; (b) Ron, a poverty-stricken, muggle-loving Weasley; > (c) Hermione, a "mudblood"; and (d) Neville, also despised of Snape, > son of an Auror, and apparent incompetent. The elitist Slyths need to > know exactly who got the points and why. That, no doubt, was why Dumbledore did it. But he could just as easily have announced the winning house before the feast and still given credit during the feast. A quick "congrats to Gryffindor, and let me explain why they won" speech would've done the job just fine without the handwaving and changing banner colors half-way through. I think this was a rare case of Dumbledore failing to see the whole picture. He saw the part that said, "Gryffindor deserves to win," and the part that said, "Neville and HRH could use a public pat on the back," but not the part that said, "Don't alienate the Slytherins any more than they already are." > Fifth: Poetic justice aside, the Slytherins and Snape undoubtedly > needed to be taken down a few pegs. In this, Dumbledore is actually > doing them a favor, not an injustice. Allowing the Slyths to continue > to win by cheating and then to lord it over the rest of the school > wasn't doing much good for school morale. I never said that the Slytherins should've been allowed to win. Why do people keep responding as if I'd said that? > Do you really think the Slytherins went home to their mommies and > cried about what a bully Dumbledore is? Do you think parents of > Slyths sent owls protesting the humiliation of their children? No, > the Slyths probably took it the way Slyths do: plotting how to get even. > Of course they're plotting to get even. That's the problem. You've got a whole House full of kids who are already at increased risk for turning to the Dark Side. The last thing you want is to leave them feeling that the school has done them a wrong that must be avenged. Slytherin House needs to learn a lot of lessons. "Don't get mad, get even" is *not* one of them. > --Dicey, who is glad Dumbledore is in charge Marina, who is also glad Dumbledore is in charge, but nevertheless disapproves of his methods from time to time. rusalka at ix.netcom.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed May 1 19:34:19 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 19:34:19 -0000 Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38379 At first I was with those who saw the theme of the books as a struggle between those with a moral code and those without. Eloise put that very well, so I wasn't going to say anything, but I have reconsidered. The Dursleys definitely live by a code, and it's probably a moral one according to their lights, so I think we need to look a little deeper. I think the theme is a struggle between those who live by a code that recognizes the rights of others, and those who do not. I think Dumbledore's code includes the right to determine good and evil according to one's own conscience. Thus Dumbledore's goodness is limited: though we may regard Dumbledore as morally superior, he does not claim to be so himself. This is what distinguishes him from icons of goodness like Aslan and Gandalf. This is a very humanist point of view, so those who despise humanism are probably not going to be happy with the books. Looked at this way, the ambiguities begin to resolve. Although Dumbledore doubtless disapproves of the Dursleys, he upholds their right to be Harry's guardians, and their right to raise him as they see fit. Likewise, it appears he believes that Harry has a right to face Voldemort, even though it puts him in danger. Snape has the right to be a nasty git, so long as he doesn't exceed his authority as a teacher. In the same way, Sirius and Lupin acknowledge Harry's right to decide the fate of Pettigrew. Hermione has a right to take too many classes. Sidelight: if she had been forced to limit her choices at the outset, she probably would have chosen Divination over Arithmancy and Muggle Studies so that she could be with her friends, and she might never have discovered her favorite subject. If this is the traditional morality of the wizarding world, then what makes the Unforgiveable Curses unforgiveable is that they tresspass on basic rights: life (avada kedavra), liberty (imperius) and the pursuit of happiness (crucio). Though this concept of rights appears in the American Declaration of Independence, the American founding fathers derived theses values from the Scottish enlightenment, so Rowling is not necessarily invoking an American ideal here. Much of the conflict in the story revolves around how universally those rights should be applied -- do House Elves have a right to liberty? Do Muggles have the rights of "beings"? -- and the way prejudice interferes with recognizing the rights of others. By rejecting Slytherin and accepting Gryffindor, Harry has chosen to be educated in a House that emphasizes rights and obligations to others, ie "chivalry" and we see him, as he grows up, internalizing its values. Lying is the norm in the Dursley household, and Harry has had no compunction about it, but for the first time, in GoF, Harry's conscience dings him when he tells a lie, not because he's decided lying is wrong, but because he believes Hagrid has a right to expect the truth. ******* Marina: >>>The Slytherins deserved to lose the House Cup because of Draco's actions. They did *not* deserve to have their faces rubbed in it in front of the whole school. And Snape, in particular, did not deserve to be jerked around by his boss in front of all his colleagues.<<< Don't forget how the Slytherins behaved when they took the lead. They were rubbing Harry's nose in it, in front of the whole school. "Slytherins, on the other hand, clapped as he went by, whistling and cheering." Apparently they've been insufferable about winning for the past six years, because even the other Houses are angry that Gryffindor blew its chances. As for Snape, who "lives in disguise, who deals in secrets and tells naught but lies," I'm sure he knew exactly what was coming. Malfoy is "stunned and horrified", as he deserves to be, but Snape isn't shocked, he goes at once to shake McGonagall's hand. I admit in real life it would have been unfairly harsh. However in the context of the books, it was more like hitting the proverbial mule upside the head to get his attention. The wizards are more resistant to physical damage than Muggles are, and can recover miraculously. The same seems to be true of emotional harm. It's already been noted many times that Harry has suffered far less from the Dursley's' treatment of him than we could expect. What if that is true of wizards generally? Wizards aren't just expected to act tough, they *are* tough, and their culture reflects that. It's a dramatic device as well: like the characters in sitcoms and soap operas, the people of the wizarding world can tolerate a lot more verbal abuse and emotional punishment than real people, which allows the author to put them in highly dramatic situations. Their initial reactions are realistic, but the likelihood of longterm emotional damage is slight, unless the plot requires it. Look at Sirius. As others have noted, he's a lot saner in GoF than he has any right to be, considering the way he acted in PoA. Lilahp: >>>it would be quite interesting if, in one of the future books, JKR does point out the discrimination against the Slytherins, which is quite unfair at times. <<<<< I think JKR is setting this up. I don't think it's subversive to see Hagrid's "there's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" as slander, and Lee Jordan's "why don't they just chuck all the Slytherins out?" as prejudice. And Harry wonders whether his first impression of the Slytherins is not colored by what he's heard about them. Pippin From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Wed May 1 19:53:52 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 19:53:52 -0000 Subject: Vernon as Molly's cousin / Timetables / Crouch Sr. In-Reply-To: <6FB2240D.0B007173.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38380 David said: > [he] have long maintained that there must be some secret in Vernon's > life that accounts for his anti-magic attitude. ... Can we take the > time-honoured approach of finding an irrelevant character who has > not been named, and equating him with VD? > Yes, indeed we can. Molly Weasley's cousin who is an accountant, of > whom they never speak, simply leaps off the page... > At Kings Cross, who does Vernon eye suspiciously? Molly Weasley. > Why? Because he suspects her of being a wizard? No, because he is > worried she will *recognise* him. He is her cousin... > And notice one final, important consequence of this incontrovertible > conclusion: Harry is *already* part of One Big Happy Weasley Family Oooo, brilliant! (And I mean "brilliant" in the American sense, where it means a lot more than in England.) That is great! Further support is that JKR said in an interview "There's stuff coming with the Dursleys that people might not expect" (http://www.oregonlive.com/books/index.ssf?/books/00/10/al_11browl22.f rame) And, I believe she has said that some character will discover magic powers late in life. Suppose it's *Vernon*? Now, on to the timetable. Several participants have tried to make sense of the timetable and calendar information that JKR has provided. My belief is that the timetable is just irretrievably FLINT-y. Someone mentioned here, a while back, that in one of the books the kids take the Hogwarts Express on Monday. And then, classes start the next day -- which is also Monday. I just think JKR hasn't worked the calendar out. By the way, I don't think there are classes on Saturdays -- Quidditch games are played on Saturdays. And, classes seem to be on the same day each week (within a given year), so I don't think there's a rotating 6-day cycle. As for Crouch Sr., Barb said: > [Crouch Sr.] put his son away even with inadequate evidence for the > sake of his career (even though this did turn out to be the right > thing to do). He engineered the switch between his wife and son, > which was categorically the WRONG thing to do and cannot therefore > count as a good act. I don't see Crouch Sr. as being totally bad. And, I don't see how sending his son to Azkaban, and helping his son escape, can *both* be seen as evidence of his evilness. Either Crouch Sr. believed his son was guilty as sin (in which case it was right to perfunctorily sentence him to life in Azkaban, given the way "justice" operates in the Wizarding World) or he believed his son was not all that evil (in which case Crouch Sr. couldn't forsee the consequences of helping his son escape.) My personal belief is that that Crouch Sr. believed his son was guilty and deserved harsh punishment, but had no idea just how devoted Jr. was to Voldemort. I don't think Crouch Sr. could possibly be expected to know that his son would help return Voldemort to power if released from Azkaban. Any parent would think "My son was under the bad influence of his friends" not "My son is the most evil creature on the face of this earth." Crouch Sr.'s willingness to help Jr. escape was done out of love for Mrs. Crouch, and I therefore think it should count in Crouch Sr.'s favor. Remember, it was Sirius who said that Crouch Sr. was motivated by career ambitions in sentencing Crouch Jr. to Azkaban. That may not be true. Sirius has good reason to hate Crouch Sr., and is not always exactly fair towards people he hates (as in his claim that Snape *deserved* to be eaten by a werewolf.) Perhaps Crouch Sr. did have good evidence that his son was guilty of torturing the Longbottoms, and was genuinely furious at him for the torture. We really don't know Crouch Sr. sent his son to Azkaban for career reasons. My personal opinion of Crouch Sr. is that he was arrogant, lacking in sympathy, and lacking in fatherly love towards his son. But, I wouldn't say he was evil. I think he genuinely hoped to improve the world by stopping the Death Eaters, but his own flaws got in the way. Also, he was capable of love, at least towards his wife. We have seen no evidence that Lucius or Crouch Jr. are capable of love, and Dumbledore says flat out (at the end of Book 1) that Voldemort is not. Certainly, Crouch Sr. doesn't seem bothered by the appalling lack of due process in the WW "justice" system. However, it seems that few other wizards are bothered by this, either. In regards to rule of law, the Wizarding World reminds me of China, which spent thousands of years advancing in some cultural areas (the arts and literaure) but just never put any emphasis on developing its legal system, and still has problems with a lack of due process. Even Dumbledore never speaks out against the WW legal system. So, Crouch Sr. certainly doesn't get any credit for the way he ran the office of Magical Law Enforcement, but I can't really put the whole blame on him, either. So, Crouch Sr. is a good example of a character who is in something of a villianous role, but who is not one-dimensionally evil. However, I agree with the claims that many of JKR's villains are quite one-dimensional (and therefore not all that believable.) Judy From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed May 1 20:26:49 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 20:26:49 -0000 Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38381 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Marina: > >>>The Slytherins deserved to lose the House Cup because of > Draco's actions. They did *not* deserve to have their faces > rubbed in it in front of the whole school. And Snape, in particular, > did not deserve to be jerked around by his boss in front of all his > colleagues.<<< > > Don't forget how the Slytherins behaved when they took the lead. > They were rubbing Harry's nose in it, in front of the whole school. > "Slytherins, on the other hand, clapped as he went by, whistling > and cheering." Apparently they've been insufferable about > winning for the past six years, because even the other Houses > are angry that Gryffindor blew its chances. But that's all among students, see? A house wins and gloats, other houses either cheer or sneer the winner, depending on their allegiances. It's part of the normal student culture at Hogwarts. Likewise, any gloating or sneering that Snape and McGonagall might do in the staff room is part of a normal professional rivalry between equals. But the Headmaster, IMO, should remain publically neutral. > I admit in real life it would have been unfairly harsh. However in > the context of the books, it was more like hitting the proverbial > mule upside the head to get his attention. The wizards are > more resistant to physical damage than Muggles are, and can > recover miraculously. The same seems to be true of emotional > harm. Well, it's not that I'm worried that Dumbledores actions will damage the Slytherins' delicate little psyches. (If they had delicate little psyches, they wouldn't be in Slytherin in the first place. ) I just think that it went a long way toward reinforcing the resentments and prejudices they already hold. And that's just counterproductive. Reaching the Slytherins is a difficult task. I think everyone here would pretty much agree that the Slyths need to learn that Muggles and Muggle-borns deserve as much respect as Purebloods. But I don't think that can happen unless they also learn that respect is not a zero-sum game where you have to take it away from one group in order to give it to another. Until they get that, it will do no good to demonstrate how wonderful Muggle-borns are -- it'll only make the Slytherins switch from "Mudbloods don't deserve respect" to "I don't care if Mudbloods deserve respect, they're not taking any of mine." Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From dicentra at xmission.com Wed May 1 20:47:28 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 20:47:28 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths (was: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38382 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > > The Slytherins deserved to > > > lose the House Cup because of Draco's actions. They did *not* > > > deserve to have their faces rubbed in it in front of the whole > > > school. And Snape, in particular, did not deserve to be jerked > > > around by his boss in front of all his colleagues. > > > > > Hmmm. I don't think that Snape or the Slytherins or Dumbledore > would > > take this position. > > Well, we know Dumbledore didn't take this position, because if he did > he wouldn't have done it. But do you really think Snape and the > Slytherins all just nodded their heads and said, "Gosh, that's fair, > we really had it coming?" Heavens no! They sulked and scowled and grumbled and probably didn't learn a thing from it, except that sometimes cheating doesn't get you ahead. (All because of that muggle-loving Dumbledore, too!) > So give Gryffindor the Cup, announce it in the usual way -- before the > Leaving Feast -- and let everybody gloat in the usual way. Pulling a > bait-and-switch in the middle of the Feast was unnecessary and > uncalled for. As Pippin says in her answer to your post, Snape probably wasn't surprised, just the Slyths. And doing it the way you suggest wouldn't have made a very good STORY, either. Shift 'er into WARPDRIVE! (See Inish Alley.) > I think this was a rare case of Dumbledore failing to see the whole > picture. He saw the part that said, "Gryffindor deserves to win," and > the part that said, "Neville and HRH could use a public pat on the > back," but not the part that said, "Don't alienate the Slytherins any > more than they already are." > > I never said that the Slytherins should've been allowed to win. Why do > people keep responding as if I'd said that? Sorry. I did get your meaning as far as that goes. I just didn't make it clear. > > > the Slyths probably took it the way Slyths do: plotting how to get > even. > > > > Of course they're plotting to get even. That's the problem. You've > got a whole House full of kids who are already at increased risk for > turning to the Dark Side. The last thing you want is to leave them > feeling that the school has done them a wrong that must be avenged. > Slytherin House needs to learn a lot of lessons. "Don't get mad, get > even" is *not* one of them. Which means that what you object to is NOT that the poor ickle Slyths got their feelings hurt but that Dumbledore was pouring gasoline on the flames. And that's an interesting point. To what extent is Dumbledore trying to prevent those at-risk kids from turning out like many of their parents? I don't think I've seen him do anything to that effect. Should Dumbledore have tempered his presentation to prevent alienating the Slyths? Imagine if before the banquet McGonagall brought up the very same point you've brought up. (She's very well might have.) What would Dumbledore's answer have been? I have to imagine that he'd refuse to alter his plans on the grounds that some DE's-in-training might get pissed off. I don't know that he sees these kids as redeemable, or that it's his job to intervene. He seems more interested in training folks for his own team than preventing kids from becoming Voldemort's minions. Judy said to Pippin, while I was writing this (slow down you guys!): "Reaching the Slytherins is a difficult task. I think everyone here would pretty much agree that the Slyths need to learn that Muggles and Muggle-borns deserve as much respect as Purebloods. But I don't think that can happen unless they also learn that respect is not a zero-sum game where you have to take it away from one group in order to give it to another. Until they get that, it will do no good to demonstrate how wonderful Muggle-borns are -- it'll only make the Slytherins switch from "Mudbloods don't deserve respect" to "I don't care if Mudbloods deserve respect, they're not taking any of mine." Is it possible that they really can't learn this from Dumbledore? Does he recognize that their upbringing far outweighs anything he can do? We certainly aren't looking at an educational model like the one in the U.S., which expects teachers to be responsible for their students' psychological health. Lilahp said: >>>it would be quite interesting if, in one of the future books, JKR does point out the discrimination against the Slytherins, which is quite unfair at times. <<<<< Pippin replied: I think JKR is setting this up. I don't think it's subversive to see Hagrid's "there's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" as slander, and Lee Jordan's "why don't they just chuck all the Slytherins out?" as prejudice. And Harry wonders whether his first impression of the Slytherins is not colored by what he's heard about them. Dicentra counters: I can't see this as prejudice or discrimination. Slytherins have fully earned their reputations: the other houses don't dislike them because of their heritage or any other arbitrary quality for which the Slyths aren't responsible. They're disliked for the way in which they treat other houses. Granted, maybe not all Slyths are as bad as Harry thinks they are, but many of them really are that bad. And worse. I can't see "house bigotry" becoming an issue and then having speech codes imposed on the students so as to make sure the Slyths don't have to live in a "threatening" or "oppressive" environment. The authority figures in the Potterverse don't tend to intervene in such touchy-feely, quintiscentially American concerns. --Dicentra, who would dis a Slyth on sight From Edblanning at aol.com Wed May 1 21:26:17 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 17:26:17 EDT Subject: More animal symbolism Message-ID: <19c.1a4980e.2a01b779@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38383 Whilst tidying up the study today, I happened to open a book at an entry about the hart. That's how it is when I tidy up; I spend more time reading than tidying. Still, what do they say? 'A tidy house is a sign of a wasted life'. But I digress. Apparently (I expect this has already been posted, but I was unfamiliar with it) the hart or stag is an early Christian symbol of Christ *because it is the enemy of the serpent*. Apparently, so the legend goes, when old, it seeks out the serpent, *which it hates*, eats it and is restored to health. I thought this was perhaps an interesting commentary on James' animagus form (and Harry's patronus). Any guesses what Harry's animagus form will be? (He *will* be an animagus, won't he? Surely we can't have learnt all this about animagi for him *not* to be one?). Moreover - and this one I especially like, since I'm apparently the only one on this list who believes that the Weasleys are named after weasels - when I did some further rooting on the Net, I found this (from a review of a book by Kerry A. Shirts, _The Bestiary of Christ_ which unfortunately seems to be out of print): 'The weasel? Yes the weasel was also used for an interesting reason. Since it could pack a punch and win combats with much bigger animals than itself, it was perfect for the Christians who, no matter how weak in themselves, can still triumph over Satan, the most terrifying monster of hell.' So the Weasleys are to have their part in the triumph over Voldemort. The bee symbolised hope for the soul's survival after death. Dumbledore, and his 'to the well organised mind, death is but the next great adventure', anybody? To be clear, I'm not arguing for a specifically Christian interpretation of HP, but JKR does clearly use symbolism, some of it quite possibly of Christian derivation. The association of Voldemort and Slytherin with the serpent and the opposition of the stag to the serpent just seems a symbolism too significant to overlook. And I'm *thrilled* to have found a positive symbolism attached to the weasel. I like weasels; they used to run along our garden wall when I was a child. (BTW, one of my chidren's books states that weasels live in the *burrows* of other animals. What's the name of the Weasleys' house? I wonder who it used to belong to?) I'm also really frustrated, because I found a site before dinner, which I've now lost (and have spent the last hour or so trying to find), which gave heraldic meanings for various animals, including Hufflepuff-like virtues for the badger and an interesting take on the lion, which had both positive and negative qualities, which made me think of the difficulty the Sorting Hat had in placing Harry, the greyness we have discussed in regards to 'good' characters and, as this week's official question asks, whether good and evil are closely related. The lion, as I recall, also has conflicting values in Christian art, being both a symbol of Christ (legend being that lion cubs were born dead and licked into life on the third day by their sire) and being a symbol either of death or of evil, according to context. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From landers at email.unc.edu Wed May 1 21:26:21 2002 From: landers at email.unc.edu (Betty) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 17:26:21 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Impossible timetable Message-ID: <3CD05D7D.7921CC2D@email.unc.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 38384 I'm starting to write a fanfic and I needed a more comprehensive look on the school timetables. So I took PoA and started to analize it looking for answers... and unless I'm very mistaken, it turns out that either all teachers (or most of them) use timeturners, or there are more teachers than canon states, or JKR simply failed to see an impossible schedule. Usually, the kids have 2 classes during the morning, then Lunch, then another class (perhaps 2?). After thorough reading, I could come with the following: First day of classes: - Divination/Arithmancy/Muggle Studies (apparently with Hufflepuff, as Ernie MacMillan tells Ron Hermione hasn't missed a class) - Transfiguration =lunch= - Care of Magical Creatures (with Slytherin) Now maybe some british members can bring some light here: Is September 1st the first day of school in britain whatever day of the week it falls into? Sept 1st was wednesday in 1993 when PoA takes place - So if students took the Hogwarts express that day, the first day of school would have been thursday, Sept. 2. Yet we know they have Potions on thursday (PoA7), so it's more likely they got to Hogwarts on Aug. 31 thus starting lessons on Sept 1st. Thursday schedule: - Potions (with Slytherin) =lunch= - DADA Yet in PoA9 Snape asks the werewolf essay "for monday morning" suggesting (and supported by PoA10) than Monday's schedule is the same as Thursday. Hence it has no sense Snape's request for "monday morning" since they complain about it to Lupin on monday afternoon! And since he says they need not to write the essay, it's obvious Snape didn't ask them to surrender it Potions. >From PoA15 we can deduce: Tuesday? or Friday? schedule: - Arithmancy / CoMC - Charms =lunch= -Divination We don't know when History of magic, Ancient Runes and Herbology are placed in the timetable (I don't count Astronomy bc we know it's lectured late at night). We know they have Transfiguration after Herbology (PoA8). It is mentioned nowhere whether or not do they have any class after the first afternoon class, though it seems they haven't. (And naturally I can speak only for the Gryffindors).This would give us a hourly load (gee I don't even know if there is a word in english for that, I hope you understand what I mean) per week as follows: Potions: 4 DADA: 2 Divination: 2 CoMC: 2 Arithmancy: 2 Charms: 1 Transfiguration: 1 Muggle Studies: 1 Herbology: 1 or 2 (it's double in CoS and GoF, but in PoA8 Transfiguration comes right after it so it can't be double) History of Magic: unknown Ancient Runes: unknown Massive snipping: Nuri It's not unlikely, though, that all comes down to JKR's mistaking the days of the week. For example, When Lavender cries for her dead bunny between classes, the 16th of october...it was saturday in 1993! (PoA8) *I don't think JKR used a calendar. It seems to be a different time frame altogether. The full moon apparently wasn't on June 6 in '93, either. So it's not a mistake; she's arranging it how she wants it...I suppose. Betty From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed May 1 21:36:00 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 21:36:00 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths (was: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38385 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > Which means that what you object to is NOT that the poor ickle Slyths > got their feelings hurt but that Dumbledore was pouring gasoline on > the flames. Exactly! > > Should Dumbledore have tempered his presentation to prevent alienating > the Slyths? Imagine if before the banquet McGonagall brought up the > very same point you've brought up. (She's very well might have.) What > would Dumbledore's answer have been? I have to imagine that he'd > refuse to alter his plans on the grounds that some DE's-in-training > might get pissed off. I don't know that he sees these kids as > redeemable, or that it's his job to intervene. He seems more > interested in training folks for his own team than preventing kids > from becoming Voldemort's minions. Ug. I'd much rather believe that Dumbledore got carried away with his sense of whimsy and made a one-time error in judgement than believe that he has written off one quarter of his student population as not worth the effort. Even putting aside any moral and ethical considerations, I think that such a course of action would be strategically stupid. > Judy said to Pippin, while I was writing this (slow down you guys!): Actually, that was me. I just can't shut up today. :-) > "Reaching the Slytherins is a difficult task. I think everyone here > would pretty much agree that the Slyths need to learn that Muggles and > Muggle-borns deserve as much respect as Purebloods. But I don't think > that can happen unless they also learn that respect is not a zero-sum > game where you have to take it away from one group in order to give it > to another. Until they get that, it will do no good to demonstrate > how wonderful Muggle-borns are -- it'll only make the Slytherins > switch from "Mudbloods don't deserve respect" to "I don't care if > Mudbloods deserve respect, they're not taking any of mine." > > Is it possible that they really can't learn this from Dumbledore? If he can't teach them that, he can at least refrain from teaching them opposite. > Does he recognize that their upbringing far outweighs anything he can > do? We certainly aren't looking at an educational model like the one > in the U.S., which expects teachers to be responsible for their > students' psychological health. Weren't you arguing earlier that the reason Dumbledore awarded points to HRH and Neville at the feast was for the improvement of *their* psychological health? Or was that someone else in this thread? There are so many people disagreeing with me, I'm losing track. :-) In any case, I'm not talking about the students' psychological health, but about their moral development. And I would think that at a boarding school that would be more of a concern, not less. For 3/4 of the year, the only adult guidance the students get comes from the teachers. > Dicentra counters: > I can't see this as prejudice or discrimination. Slytherins have fully > earned their reputations: the other houses don't dislike them because > of their heritage or any other arbitrary quality for which the Slyths > aren't responsible. They're disliked for the way in which they treat > other houses. How much of a bad reputation can an eleven-year-old child "deserve" on the very first day they start school? Yet the Slytherins are disliked from the moment they're sorted (witness Fred and George hissing Malcolm Baddock at the Sorting in GoF -- what did the kid ever do to them?) Children have a way of living up -- or down -- to expectations. If everyone from Dumbledore on down believes that the Slytherins are destined to grow up to be slime and there's no point in even attempting to stop it, well, then most of them will indeed grow up to be slime. Even those who might've been salvageable at the start. > can't see "house bigotry" becoming an issue and then having speech > codes imposed on the students so as to make sure the Slyths don't have > to live in a "threatening" or "oppressive" environment. The authority > figures in the Potterverse don't tend to intervene in such > touchy-feely, quintiscentially American concerns. I don't recall that anyone, American or not, has advocated "speech codes" or a "touchy-feely" approach. Touchy-feely guidance wouldn't work with the Slytherins anyhow. But it *is* possible to teach kids to be fair and unprejudiced without making everyone hold hands in a circle and sing "Kumbaya." Even people who aren't incredibly wise 150-year-old wizards have been known to successfully do it. So I think Dumbledore should at least give it a try. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From cindysphynx at comcast.net Wed May 1 22:13:07 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 22:13:07 -0000 Subject: Fourth Man Variants & Life Sentence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38386 The Fourth Man Hovercraft has been drifting aimlessly for weeks, the mini-bar long depleted and the S'mores quaffed by a certain allegedly Redeemable Minor Character with a voracious appetite. No one is doing maintenance, despite the many leaks that have sprung up. The place is filthy mess. Bystanders are openly heckling Fourth Man. There is a most unfortunate and embarrassing Lack of Discipline among the crew. The sad truth is that the crew has, for the most part, gone to seed now that they needn't actually *row* The Fourth Man Kayak and can simply baste in the Hovercraft Hot Tub instead of doing any real work. Well, I don't want to be the one to say "I told you so," but . . . "I told you so." The upgrade to the hovercraft was a Mistake. Fourth Man has gone *Soft*, if you ask me. How do I know the Hovercraft has gone to heck? Well, for one thing, now we have unthinkable slander like this: Judy wrote: > Yep, I can't accept that Avery was the Fourth Man in the Pensieve > scene, either. In fact, I've been dying for ages to ask whether > people *really* believe that the Fourth Man was Avery, or if the >whole "Fourth Man is Avery" thing is just a joke. OK. That *really* hurt. A joke? Fourth Man is just a *joke*? Is Ever So Evil Moody a Joke? Is Trapezoid a Joke? Is ToadKeeper a Joke? Why. I. Never! For your information, Fourth Man is the sole reason JKR is taking so darn long with OoP. The delay isn't due to the new husband or the relentless upkeep on JKR's many mansions. No, Avery is going to be the whole plot twist in OoP, so JKR has to get it just right. No, Fourth Man Believers (and I'm sure they won't mind if I speak for them without their permission) are *dead* serious about how canon leads to the inescapable conclusion that Avery is the Fourth Man in the Pensieve. There. I'm glad we cleared *that* up. Judy: > Why don't I think Avery is the Fourth Man? Simple. First of all, >the > Fourth Man, whoever he was, was sentenced to *life* in Azkaban. Yes, that's true. Fourth Man did receive a life sentence. But that doesn't mean he's actually going to *serve* a life sentence in Azkaban, though, does it? I mean, Sirius got a life sentence, and there's now doubt in Sirius' mind that if he can apprehend Pettigrew, Sirius won't be dumped back in Azkaban just because he once had a life sentence. So, there exists the possibility that one who receives a life sentence in Azkaban can have that sentence reversed. Now, if Avery is the Fourth Man in the Pensieve and received a life sentence, then how does he get out under the Fourth Man theory? Well, it depends on who you ask. ;-) My view is that Avery sat quietly in the Pensieve scene and let Mrs. Lestrange shoot her mouth off, wondering if she was *ever* going to learn when to Shut Up. The whole time, Avery is staring into space thinking about the Imperius defense he plans to make on appeal. Sure, Avery probably raised the Imperius defense with Crouch Sr. at the trial of the Lestranges/Crouch Jr./Fourth Man, but that Crouch Sr. is a wild man who wasn't about to listen to any sorry Imperius defenses. Crouch Sr. realized that once Voldemort fell, everyone else came out of trances, so any Imperius defenses for post- Voldemort crimes won't fly. So Avery bides his time in Azkaban. And then his old buddy Fudge makes Minister of Magic. Oh, that was a glorious day for Avery in Azkaban! Now Fudge (who is either dim or Ever So Evil or both) is top dog, and Avery is free to try again with his Imperius Defense on appeal with Fudge. It works, and Avery/Fourth Man wins a release in the form of a pardon or reversal or whatever. Avery probably taunts Mrs. Lestrange on his way to Freedom; I mean, who wouldn't? So yeah. The puny canon that Fourth Man is supposed to be wasting away serving a life sentence doesn't put so much as a dent in the Fourth Man hovercraft. Avery can be the same guy who was sentenced to life in the Pensieve. Judy: >And, Sirius > said that *almost* all of Snape's "gang" were Death Eaters. The only > one not convicted of being a Death Eater was Avery, who got off by > pleading Imperiatus. I take this to mean that Avery was *never* > convicted of being a Death Eater and *never* was sent to Azkaban. Eloise wavered: >Sirius doesn't *have* to have been right, does he? And given the >imprecise >manner in which we've just seen legal procedings described, this >*could* be a >similar sort of thing. Oh, ye of little faith! Ah, look at the exact quote: "Avery -- from what I've heard he wormed his way out of trouble by saying he'd been acting under the Imperius Curse -- he's still at large." "Wormed his way out of trouble" is certainly consistent with the idea that Avery/Fourth Man was in trouble (life sentence in Azkaban) and got out of it (a successful appeal based on Imperius and having friends in high places). Sirius, who is sitting on the floor of a cave gnawing on chickent bones, can't be expected to use terms like "convicted" and "pardoned" and such. After all, Sirius also says Karkaroff "got released" and "did a deal." "Wormed his way out of trouble" is probably as precise as Sirius gets when he is talking about the wizarding justice system. So Sirius is right (although imprecise because he has is reporting rumor and isn't a Detail Man), and Avery could well be Fourth Man. Charis Julia wrote (about 8 Sparkling New Fourth Man Variants): > Fourth Man With Serious Perversion. 1) In FMWSP Avery is in fact a real sicko with > a twisted appetite for Cruciatus Blasts. You know. . . pain and > pleasure are all the same and all that. . . In the graveyard he put > himself forward actually * hoping* for a stint of Crucio. Oh, we seem to have a 4-way ownership dispute for rights to "Fourth Man With Serious Perversion." Davewitley claims it is his Baby, although Charis Julia has given it a delightful name. And I raised it in Message 36,676. But Elkins mentioned it in Message 36,664, many weeks before these latest mentions. I think Elkins wins. Sorry Dave. Nice try, though. ;-) > 2)Fourth Man In Cruciatus Contest: > 3) Suicidal Fourth Man: OK, this one is not bad. Really, maybe Avery has a death wish. Serving even a tiny bit of his life sentence is probably enough to mess with his mind, so he decides to End It All In Dramatic Fashion in the Graveyard. And he can't even get *that* right. Very, very Bangy. > 4) Fourth Man, With Slashy SHIP: > 5) Fourth Man, With Teenybopper Crush: > 6) Fourth Man, With Relief: > 7) Backstabbing Fourth Man: > > > Now. How do you think the Longbottom's Cruciators were caught, huh? > Ahhh, that's right. Clever Grownup. Got it in one. Avery pulled a > Pettigrew. He turned them in. That's how he got off light, you > understand. Cut a deal with the Ministry. OK. Now you're speaking my language. See, the whole point of reviving Fourth Man was to see if there's any way he can be made sufficiently Tough to satisfy me. Each of the previous variants Charis and Elkins have devised keeps Avery trapped as a hopeless SYCOPHANT (is that redundant?). So I was looking for something like Backstabbing Fourth Man. I say he's a winner. Just keep him away from me, 'kay? ;-) > 8) Fourth Man As Seer: >What he's * really* doing in the graveyard, see, is > Answering the Beckoning of Fate. That's why he gives in so easily. > He's playing along, right. The fates have informed him that his > chances of resisting are * nil* and he just wants it all over as > quickly as possible. This raises some tough questions. I mean, if one is Tough, does one challenge fate or submit? I don't even know if Fourth Man As Seer is Tough or Soft. I'm getting rather confused, to be honest with you. I need someone with training in Philosophy to straighten this out for me. Charis Julia: > So there you go. Eight brand new Fourth Man variants For You To Enjoy > And Collect. And feel free to pick n' mix too if you wish. I would > note however that personally, I'm standing strong by In Over His Head > Fourth Man. He makes better sense. Aw, Charis Julia. I'm touched. ::sniff:: In Over His Head Fourth Man was my *Baby* , and you have endorsed him. You know, we should have a little talk about Ever So Evil Moody. ;-) Cindy **************** Messages 34,911, 35,062, 36,473, 37,745, 34,911, 36,829, 35,657, 35,318, 35,533 From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed May 1 22:07:10 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 22:07:10 -0000 Subject: Thought about Snape and James Potter's relationship In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38387 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > And I > don't know, maybe it's my own adolescent traumas coming through, but > to me, the small amount we've been told about the Snape-Marauders > conflict looks an awful lot like a couple of popular jocks picking on > the geeky loser. There is some interesting remark Sirius does during the Shrieking Shack scene. He says to Peter: "You'd want to be sure he was the biggest bully in the playground before you went back to him". And earlier: "You always liked big friends" Now if we put two and two together, James and Sirius must've been the biggest bullies in the playground at the time. And it's possible to be half-decent "popular" bully, you don't have to be completely evil for that. I think Sirius was from a rich family, to buy Harry that broomstick. Two rich, popular, athletic, succesful golden boys - what's not to love about them? ;-) Irene From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Wed May 1 23:08:31 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 23:08:31 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths (was: Midnight in the ...) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38388 I think Dumbledore was wrong to publically humiliate the Slytherins in PS/SS, acting like they were going to get the House Cup and then publically snatching it away at the banquet. Marina argued this point of view, saying: > [The Slytherins] did *not* > deserve to have their faces rubbed in it in front of the whole > school. And Snape, in particular, did not deserve to be jerked > around by his boss in front of all his colleagues. But Dicentra, who would dis a Slyth on sight, thought Dumbledore did the right thing: > Slytherin had been winning the house cup for several years > running. Given Snape's propensity for randomly awarding and > deducting points, and the Slytherin credo of ends justifies the > means, it's highly likely their House Cup wins didn't come about by > the most above-the-board means in the world.... > the Slytherins and Snape undoubtedly needed to be taken down a few > pegs. So, sometimes Dumbledore is going to "take Snape down a peg", by humiliating him in front of all of the students and the other faculty, and sometimes Dumbledore is going to say "Umm, Severus, do you think you could go risk your life for my cause?" Sounds like a poor strategy to me. There's a bunch of problems with humiliating Snape and the Slyths. In addition to pushing them towards Voldemort's side, I just plain don't think it's right. We don't know that *all* the Slyths are evil; why do they *all* deserve humiliation? True, it's not nice to "cheer" Harry for losing Gryffindor points. However, that doesn't make it OK for Dumbledore to stoop to the Slytherin students' level; he is supposed to set an example for them. As someone said, Dumbledore is Headmaster and therefore should be impartial. I see no evidence that Snape cheated in order to win the House Cup for Slytherin in previous years. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, Snape is all bark and no bite when it comes to the students. (I assume that when it comes to his treatment of *adults*, he has actually fought or killed some in the past.) He says a lot of mean things, but is much less biased when it comes to grades and points. We know he gave Hermione a higher grade than Draco in Year One. Sure, Snape takes points off Harry *twice*, for no reason the first time he meets him, but only *1* point each time, a trivial amount. I actually think that some of the times he takes off points (5 points in PoA when Hermione talks out of turn three times, 10 points when Harry barges in late), he could have taken off plenty more, given the rules at Hogwarts. In the scene where Harry comes in late, after Harry repeatedly refuses to sit down, Snape takes off only 5 more points (although he *threatens* to take off 50.) Really, Harry is being very unfair to Snape in that scene, although Harry doesn't realize it. He is more-or-less implying in front of the whole class that Snape has poisoned Lupin, when in actually Snape is helping Lupin by making the Wolfbane potion for him. (Let me put in a plug here for my theory that Snape *invented* Wolfbane potion, and did it specifically for Lupin.) In general, Snape is often *perceived* as trying to give the House Cup to his Slytherins, even when he's not. In the first book, Quirrel notes that the staff thought Snape was trying to throw the Quidditch match to Slytherin by referring, when Snape was *really* trying to protect Harry. So, if Snape isn't cheating, why has Slytherin won so often? I agree that there is a lot of unfairness in the system; I just don't think Snape is the cause. Hogwarts seems to make no effort to provide a level playing field. Rich parent wants to buy top-notch brooms for your whole House team? Fine. Parents too poor to buy you a decent wand? Tough luck. Hogwarts seems to have a "Play the hand you're dealt" ethos, which often favors the Slytherins. This does not justify the Headmaster publically humiliating Slythrin, in my judgment. By the way, if Snape has been Head of Slytherin the whole time during Slytherin's winning streak, this would make him Housemaster just a few years out of school -- very impresive. Pippin said the public humiliation was "poetic justice" because of > how the Slytherins came to be 150 points ahead of Gryffindor in the > first place...it was because of Draco Malfoy 's underhanded plot to > catch them with Norbert. I disagree. That is not how it happened in the book. In the book (unlike the movie), Draco fails to get Harry and Hermione in trouble; he is caught by McGonagall long before Filch catches Harry and Hermione. McGonagall takes 20 points from Slytherin because Draco was out of bed and trying to get Harry & Hermione in trouble, and then takes 150 points from Gryffindor because she *thought* Harry and Hermione were plotting to get Draco in trouble. In other words, McGonagall misjudged Harry and Hermione, and took an excessive number of points from Gryffindor. This is hardly Slytherin House's fault. Why should Slytherin be punished, and Gryffindor rewarded, for an injustice committed by the head of *Gryffindor*? I really can't see Dumbledore wanting to publically humiliate Snape and the Slytherins. We know that Snape and Dumbledore have a close relationship. (Not *that* close, for anyone whose mind is now rolling around in the gutter.) I think JKR had Dumbledore do this for dramatic purposes, and it is out of character for Dumbledore. As Dicentra said "Shift 'er into WARPDRIVE! (See Inish Alley.)" Someone raised the interesting possibility that maybe Dumbledore had warned Snape in advance about the House Cup switch. This could have strategic advantages. Snape needs to pretend he hates Dumbledore in order to convince the Death Eaters that he is still on their side. So, having Dumbledore publically humiliate him might be something Snape would agree to, to make it seem like he and Dumbledore are enemies. The humiliation to the Slytherin students could be justified as necessary in the war against Voldemort. So, this would make this scene *not* a mischaracterization. (Although I doubt JKR really wrote the scene for this reason.) Dicentra also asked: > To what extent is Dumbledore trying to prevent those at-risk kids > from turning out like many of their parents? I don't think I've > seen him do anything to that effect.... I don't know that he sees > these kids as redeemable, or that it's his job to intervene. He > seems more interested in training folks for his own team than > preventing kids from becoming Voldemort's minions. Excellant point, and that seems like another flaw in how the stories are written. JKR has repeatedly said that Dubledore is goodness personified (getting back to the original "Good and Evil" question.) Furthermore, Dumbledore offers forgiveness to all who ask in the leaving banquet scene in GoF. A "Go ahead, Slytherin Punks, make my day" approach, where he is willing or even happy to have an excuse to fight the Slytherins, just doesn't fit. But, we never see Dumbledore trying to prevent the Slytherin students from joining Voldemort's side. -- Judy, who would dis a snotty Malfoy if she thought she could get away with it, but who would probably melt all over Snape's shoes From zoehooch at yahoo.com Wed May 1 23:54:58 2002 From: zoehooch at yahoo.com (zoehooch) Date: Wed, 01 May 2002 23:54:58 -0000 Subject: Vernon as Molly's cousin / Timetables / Crouch Sr. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38389 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "judyserenity" wrote: > Certainly, Crouch Sr. doesn't seem bothered by the appalling lack of > due process in the WW "justice" system. However, it seems that few > other wizards are bothered by this, either. Of course, if I'm not mistaken, we only have knowledge of "wizard world justice" during a period of extreme crisis in the land due to Voldemort. Things could be completely different during more normal times. In some ways, the "judicial" activities that took place during that time remind of America's stand on military tribunals post-Sept 11, in that due to the fact of a major crisis, full-blown trials, with lots of lawyers and appeals and so forth are felt to be much less important that taking care of the crisis at hand. Zoe From lmccabe at sonic.net Thu May 2 00:02:24 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 17:02:24 -0700 Subject: Ordinary Ron (again) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38390 Tabouli wrote: I in fact have no problem with Ron being an ordinary kid. Let ordinary people have a representative in the series, I say. After all, by definition *most* people are ordinary, aren't they? In the ol' competitive individualistic societies "ordinary" has become a bit of an epithet (in fact, in Australia "ordinary" is regularly used to mean "bad", though that's also got to do with the Australian habit of understatement)... being ordinary is being undistinguished, worthless, of no consequence... there's this message that you *have* to be special in some way, be uniquely talented at something, and so on to be of any value, define yourself, stand out from the crowd. I say let Ron represent the intrinsic value instead of comparative value message, show that you don't have to be better than other people to be worthwhile. Besides which, having all three of the Trio miraculously turn out to have supernatural ability at something would be a bit excessive, in my literary balance book... Athena here: Okay, I'll say why I don't want Ron to be just ordinary. It has to do with the Mirror of Erised and what Dumbledore had said about Ron desperately wanting to distinguish himself from his older brothers' shadows. Ron had said as much on the Hogwarts Express to Harry the first time they met. And this resonated with me because I still feel guilty about my own overshadowing of my brother. So I was projecting my own guilt to Ron. He had two brothers who were Head Boys, another brother was a star athlete and was the Quidditch team captain who won the Quidditch Cup, and two other brothers who were popular. It doesn't leave any real avenue in school anyway for him to distinguish himself because he'll be compared with the successes of any of the other brothers in anything he does. My own brother's situation is a little different from Ron's. I only had one sibling and we grew up in a small town. Everyone knew everyone and everyone's business. Gossip reigned supreme. I happened to be a swotty little git like Hermione (JKR's description of herself at that age!). I was top of my class grades wise and was heavily involved in extra-curricular activities. I stood out and teachers who didn't even have me in their classes knew who I was. My brother on the other hand was someone that barely stood out from the wallpaper. Most people didn't even realize that we were brother and sister because we were so different even though we were the only kids in the school with our same last name. Here's the irony and the difference from what would be expected, I was four years *younger* than my brother. My shadow was actually creeping up and covering him when he was a senior (12th year) while I was only entering high school (9th grade). I still feel weird talking with my brother about my life. I don't tell him about certain things that might make him jealous because I have a higher standard of living than he does due to my higher education and better paying job. Having an older sibling resent my success in life is a very uncomfortable position to be in. It's as if he blames me for his own failures...it would make more sense if our birth orders were reversed. Anyway, if you want ordinary characters - I think we've got enough of those in the HPverse. They are pretty one dimensional ones, but they are from everything I remember - very ordinary: Seamus Finnigan, Dean Thomas, Lavender Brown, Parvati & Padma Patil, Justin Finch-Fletchley, Hannah Abbott, Susan Bones. I just think that the gap in the Weasley Family as well as other clues (Arthur's discussion of the Dark Mark at the QWC) lead to the potential of a missing child (Or children) which could make Ron a Seventh Son. And then - there's lots of ancient legends regarding the clairvoyant powers of Seventh Sons. It's an easy conclusion to think that JKR has been building us up for this plot twist. I think it's likely and I think it would work to alleviate the Mirror of Erised need of Ron to distinguish himself from his older siblings. That's why I'm hoping that this theory either as WANDS CRISS-CROSS or HAGRID WANTS BRASS DRAGONS AS PETS acronyms come into play. (Both are okay as far as I'm concerned. I just really didn't like the WANTON MORASS OF TOSH. I'll let you and Grey Wolf figure out which one becomes listed for future reference.) And really, Ron is not a character that I'm all that interested in. I just feel sorry for him, like I feel sorry for my brother. Now Sirius Black on the other hand...that's a character that I'm quite taken with. Yummmm. ;-) Athena From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu May 2 01:26:35 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 01:26:35 -0000 Subject: FILK: Tangled up in Floo Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38391 Tangled up in Floo An HP filk by Mariner To the tune of "Tangled up in Blue" by Bob Dylan Scene: after his accidental trip to Knockturn Alley in CoS, Harry explains what happened HARRY; Early one morning at the Burrow, I was hangin' with Ron. We decided to go to Diagon Alley, Get some shopping done. All the Weasleys came along, The whole red-headed crew, They gave me some magical powder stuff And explained what I should do. I stood in front of the fireplace Tryin' not to burn my shoes. I threw the powder into the flames, Breathed in the ashes that flew, said "Achoo!" Tangled up in Floo. I found myself in a strange dark place I didn't recognize. I was was trapped in a dusty space, Smoke was stinging my eyes. There were human bones and ugly masks, Toe of frog and eye of newt, Pickled slimy things in jars Didn't look remotely cute. I clenched my hands and I closed my eyes, I admit I was scared stiff. I knew I wasn't in Diagon, It was an entirely different avenue, Tangled up in Floo. The door swung open with a creak, And I was feeling no joy When a pair of customers came in, And each was a Malfoy. In my mind there wasn't any doubt That they were up to no good. I knew I needed to get away, But I didn't see how I could. Thank god they didn't spot me there, I would not have stood a chance. I really wished I were somewhere else, Like maybe in Paris, France, or in Peru, Tangled up in Floo. Lucius had some things to sell, And none of them looked nice. He put on a lot of snooty airs As he haggled over price. Draco prowled around the shop, Looking for something to buy. When his father ragged him about his grades, He looked like he might cry. I remember thinking to myself, "Dude, grow yourself a spine!" He acted like a total git, Man, you should've heard him whine, made want to spew. Tangled up in Floo. After a while, the Malfoys moved on, The coast was finally clear. I snuck out into the street, Intending to disappear. I didn't like the looks of the place, All the shops sold nasty stuff. I might not have known what it was, But I knew I'd seen enough. Then a witch confronted me in the street, Selling fingernails off a tray. I was starting to feel just a bit uneasy, When Hagrid saved the day, yeah, he came through. Tangled up in Floo. So that's my trip to Knockturn Alley, Sure was a narrow escape. No way I'm going back again, I'd just as soon kiss Snape. Fred and George thought it was cool, But as I said to Ron, "Leave the Dark Arts to the Malfoys, I'm sticking to Diagon." I'm leaving Knockturn far behind, With it's monsters and its spooks. Gonna head on down to Flourish & Blotts To purchase Lockhart's books, that's what I'll do. Tangled up in Floo. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From dicentra at xmission.com Thu May 2 01:52:07 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 01:52:07 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38392 OK. I'm takin' on both Judy and Marina at once. ::rolls up sleeves, spits on hands and rubs them together:: Anyone else want to play on my side? Pippin? Anyone? Anyone? Say I: I can't see this as prejudice or discrimination. Slytherins have fully earned their reputations: the other houses don't dislike them because of their heritage or any other arbitrary quality for which the Slyths aren't responsible. They're disliked for the way in which they treat other houses. To which Marina says: How much of a bad reputation can an eleven-year-old child "deserve" on the very first day they start school? Yet the Slytherins are disliked from the moment they're sorted (witness Fred and George hissing Malcolm Baddock at the Sorting in GoF -- what did the kid ever do to them?) And I make the following comparison: If I were to wear my Utah Jazz tee-shirt in Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, or L.A., I could expect a few raspberries and catcalls and maybe even the finger (well, I'd get that in L.A. anyway). But I wouldn't take it personally because I know they're just reacting to the basketball rivalry. The House rivalries are the same kind of thing: I doubt Malcolm took it personally that some Gryffs dissed him. It's expected. If the Slyths had dissed him... now that would be different. Judy observes: However, that doesn't make it OK for Dumbledore to stoop to the Slytherin students' level; he is supposed to set an example for them. As someone said, Dumbledore is Headmaster and therefore should be impartial. And I say: According to whom? WE certainly think he should remain neutral in the House rivalries, because that's our idea of fair and proper. That might not be the case at all in WW. Remember, WW is messed up six ways 'til Tuesday. A pie in the face from the Hogwarts Headmaster is the least of their problems. I also asked: To what extent is Dumbledore trying to prevent those at-risk kids from turning out like many of their parents? Judy, who would melt all over Snape's shoes, responded: Excellent point, and that seems like another flaw in how the stories are written. JKR has repeatedly said that Dumbledore is goodness personified (getting back to the original "Good and Evil" question.) Furthermore, Dumbledore offers forgiveness to all who ask in the leaving banquet scene in GoF. A "Go ahead, Slytherin Punks, make my day" approach, where he is willing or even happy to have an excuse to fight the Slytherins, just doesn't fit. But, we never see Dumbledore trying to prevent the Slytherin students from joining Voldemort's side. And Marina says, in that same vein: Children have a way of living up -- or down -- to expectations. If everyone from Dumbledore on down believes that the Slytherins are destined to grow up to be slime and there's no point in even attempting to stop it, well, then most of them will indeed grow up to be slime. Even those who might've been salvageable at the start. And Dicentra proffers yet another analogy: It used to drive me to distraction when people insisted that Scully and Mulder had a thing going. "C'mon," they'd say. "They're both young and attractive, they spend a lot of time together, they've learned to trust each other, and let's face it, they don't exactly have a social life outside each other..." And I would say, "Look, the writers have publicly declared that they don't have a thing going. Which means they don't." But people insisted on SHIPping them until I wanted to scream. They just didn't get that fictional characters operate only within the parameters they've been given, not according to RL constraints. The point I'm making is this: what Dumbledore did is a bad idea ONLY if it affected the Slyths the way y'all imagine it must have. And it affected them that way only if JKR wrote them to react that way. In the context of Book 1 alone, there is no strategic mistake because there are no DEs, no resurrected Voldemort, no path of darkness for the Slyths to follow except one of their own making. Maybe JKR didn't have her chops down yet in Book 1, so Dumbledore's "tactical error" is actually hers. On the other hand, I would need to see evidence that the Slyths and Snape took it any harder than Neville did when he ate the canary creams. Do we hear them mutter about how they hate Dumbledore and his kind because of how they're being treated at Hogwarts? Has Snape put Dumbledore's little trick in the same category as Sirius's Prank? I know we've got a Snapetheory that posits that Snape went DE because he thought the concepts of good and evil were meaningless (rifles through nearly finished Hypothetic Alley to find its name). Ah, yes. GEORGE'S SISTER DIANA seems to be the one. A particular application of the theory has it that Dumbledore's reaction to The Prank played a strong role in his decision to wear the Dark Mark. But as cool as the theory is, it could be wrong. Dead wrong. I'll concede this point: if Hogwarts were operating in the Real World, you could certainly argue that Dumbledore's little drama was in poor taste at best, a tactical error at worst. But as part of the Potterverse? It's only a mistake if it was written that way. --Dicentra, tugging down her sleeves and going to wash the spit off her hands From nobradors at hotmail.com Thu May 2 01:59:26 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?N=FAria_Obradors_Pi?=) Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 22:59:26 -0300 Subject: Vernon as Molly's cousin/RE:Impossible timetable/Sirius' Eyes Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38393 David wrote: >Can we take the time-honoured approach of finding an irrelevant character who has not been >named, and equating him with VD? Yes, indeed we can. Molly Weasley's cousin >who is an accountant, of whom they never speak, simply leaps off the page. Interesting Theory. Very interesting. David: >What could cause young Vernon Dursley to become so embittered? It's clear. >Rejection, that's what. *We*, through Harry's POV, see the kind, tolerant, >welcoming Weasleys. But Vernon has suffered from their dark side. As so often >happens with liberal-minded people, the Weasleys love Muggles from a distance, >but have no intention of letting one anywhere near their family. When Mrs >Dursley Sr (nee Weasley - well, no, but possibly nee the same as Molly) married >a Muggle and gave birth to a Muggle son, their wrath knew no bounds. They cut >her off without a knut. In turn, she brought young Vernon up to have nothing >to do with magic in any form. She sent him to Smeltings where a regime of cold >baths and knobbly sticks could guarantee to knock any magical thought out of >his head. She groomed him for that most unmagical of all professions, >accountancy. Could be, but I don't like the theory of Molly Weasley's Family cutting off Vernon's parents. How about this other speculation: *Mr* Dursley marries muggle Mrs Dursley and keeps his wizarding skills in secret until after Vernon and Marge are born (we don't know who's the eldest - they even could be twins). When she knows her husband's true identity, she freaks and leaves him. He dies soon afterwards, and the kids are raised well apart from the wizarding community. Molly's family regrets that Vernon's family turned their backs on the wizarding side of the family. Of course this is crazy speculation *and* when Molly says a cousin we don't know if she's refering to a first cousin or a second cousin. I always refer to my second cousins simply as my cousins, and only use the "second" to clarify the perplexed mind who doesn't recall my parents having so many brothers! ******* Katherine wrote: >The simplest way out is that she might be able to get by on a few >hours of sleep, but that causes even more doubt that she'd be at all >the feasts and ceremonies, much less dance the two step with a >partner who has a wooden leg. That would be assuming she has a normal, daylight life? If she ends up her class late, she probably gets up at noon and has all her time schedule moved to fit her working shift. Katherine: >So let's say she does sleep for a decent amount of time, and her last >class leaves at 2. >It's possible that she (...) casts a spell to aid >with clearing up, but while the spell is a possibility, it's early in >the morning, Early morning? :-) This brings me back to the first paragraph. What is late and early is completely relative. For me, 2 a.m. is "late night", and "early morning" might be 5 am, for instance. I know though that in England and the US they usually do everything at times that are too early for us argentinians. We can discuss times-for-doing-things in OT chatter if you like, but I'll only say here that in my country is completely normal -and usual- to go to bed at midnight and getting up at 6 or 7 the next morning. Katherine: >In a third possibility, however, one that doesn't require her to >travel, she might merely sleep in the Astronomy tower. This is might >be a bit drafty in the winter, but who knows, maybe the tower is >spelled to be warmer. I've always assumed all teachers slept in the Hogwarts castle, at least on weekdays. At least we know the heads of houses do so, Maybe that's what I assumed it, but again, we haven't canon evidence as whether the other teachers stay or not in the castle for the night. :-p Katherine: > Then she teaches her lessons starting at >about 11 or 12 and running to 2, and goes through it all over again. Perhaps she could start a bit earlier, especially since, in England, is dark by 4 pm in winter (though I do believe astronomy takes place always after dinner). And let's not forget weather and moon phases are very conditioning to the visibility of the sky. Katherine: >Now, the question is, how do the STUDENTS manage? >I don't think there are that >many assignments on Astronomy, (I'm pretty certain one was mentioned, >but that might have been Divination-star charts and so on.) but they, >can't use the sleeping schedule Sinistra does. You really have to >wonder what the ones that leave at 2 do. And Mike Wiltse wrote: >You could probably fit them all into 21 slots (3 a day) if >you crammed enough into doubles, Harry has at least 3 doubles , CoMC, >Potions, Herbology, (was astrology double?) I like to think that older students get the later astronomy slots, so little kids can get a better sleep (and yes, we do get to see HRH doing astronomy assignments). About what Mike says, I wonder the same thing. We've seen Gryffindors paired with Hufflepuffs and Slytherins but not with Ravenclaws, so could they be paired with them in Astronomy? Katherine: >On a final note, do you think Divination students have to keep up the >Astronomy classes? Divination does cover Astrology, and while these >are not the same thing, they might be close enough by wizard >standards. What do you think? This is another interesting point, as so far we've seen only subjects being added, not substracted of the timetables. And, for example, I think many on this list will agree with me that it's unlikely that the kids *still* have flying lessons in books 3 and 4 (there's no canon evidence endorsing or refuting this). Mike Wiltse wrote: > 7 Teachers (Trelawney never eats at the table, and Binns doesnt need >to eat) that I know of. But if you read the above carefully, Is she >reading off the names on both sides of Dumbledore or only one side? >I think its only 1 because mrs hooch isnt mentioned > Either way with 28 classes slots a week (not all are filled) with >double classes in a single slot to make more room I think it would >all fit. And Bernadette M. Crumb added: > it wouldn't surprise me to find there are other >instructors who have not yet been named. Who teaches Muggle >Studies? I don't recall seeing a name attached to that >instructor. Who teaches Ancient Runes? Until we see Harry >having to interact with these people, they'll probably not be >identified. Also, who can say that there's not more elective >classes for the more senior students that haven't actually been The "more teachers than we know" theory is the only one that I can think of, too. Olly in another post clarified that a double class is (at least in Scotland) the one that last twice the normal slot, though yes, pairing houses helps make more room. Bernadette is right in pointing that neither the MS nor the AR teacher's names are given in canon. And I think I agree with her that we won't get to see those teachers unless they have to interact with Harry. However, if HRH still have the same teachers we've know so far in the books to come, the "other teachers" might be assigned not to years but to specific classes. Or they all have timeturners, blimey. **** Athena: >I just think that the gap in the Weasley Family as well as other clues >(Arthur's discussion of the Dark Mark at the QWC) lead to the potential of a >missing child (Or children) which could make Ron a Seventh Son. And then - >there's lots of ancient legends regarding the clairvoyant powers of Seventh >Sons. It's an easy conclusion to think that JKR has been building us up for >this plot twist. I think it's likely and I think it would work to alleviate >the Mirror of Erised need of Ron to distinguish himself from his older >siblings. This 7thchild!Ron theory is really funny to me - In my country, it is believed that the seventh son of a family becomes a werewolf, while a seventh daughter becomes a witch! **** Athena wrote: >Now Sirius Black on >the other hand...that's a character that I'm quite taken with. Yummmm. Ooooh, a Sirius Black Fan! Isn't it funny that in an era dominated by image there are so many of us who have a crush on a literary character who -unlike HRH, Draco or Snape- doesn't have a movie-canon image to be related to? By the way =Calling out for Sirius's girlfriends out there!= IIRC Black's eye colour is NOT mentioned in the books - or is it and I just failed miserably to notice it? Nuri From Ahketsi at aol.com Thu May 2 02:00:49 2002 From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com) Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 22:00:49 EDT Subject: Is Draco evil? Message-ID: <181.7bb0ab4.2a01f7d1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38394 "Many people see Draco not as plain evil, but as simply weakly following in his father's footsteps, and of accepting the values he's been shown without question, rather than embracing them of his own accord." -Cygnus I think Draco is mostly a rotten person. It's obvious that he thinks highly of himself and feels even more superior because of his "pure-blood" pedigree. I definitely don't think he's "plain evil." He's had a lot of bad influene from his father, but it's obvious he has strong opinions and not a lot of self-doubt or open-mindedness. I think Draco will prove himself capable of doing some really terrible things, but he's still a pitiable character, as most pathetic people like himself are. -Ahketsi From judyshapiro at earthlink.net Thu May 2 04:19:24 2002 From: judyshapiro at earthlink.net (judyserenity) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 04:19:24 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38395 Dicentra wrote: > OK. I'm takin' on both Judy and Marina at once. Yeah, but are you doing it with one hand tied behind your back??? > In the context of Book 1 alone, there is no strategic mistake > because there are no DEs, no resurrected Voldemort, no path of > darkness for the Slyths to follow except one of their own making. No resurrected Voldemort *yet*. But, Dumbledore has good reason to think that Voldemort will be back (and, in fact, Voldemort is already present as Quirdemort.) If Dumbledore doesn't think Voldemort's return is a serious possibility, he should just have handled Quirdemort himself; the rationale for letting Harry face him is that Harry needs to learn to cope with Voldemort. If Dumbledore *does* think Voldemort's return is a serious possibility, then he needs to worry about alienating Snape and the Slyths. Dicentra then said that to be sure Dumbledore had alienated the Slytherins, she > would need to see evidence that the Slyths and Snape took it [the > Cup Switch] any harder than Neville did when he ate the canary > creams. The whole story is told from Harry's point of view. The Slyths could be screaming bloody murder, and unless Harry happens to overhear them, we'll never know about it. >From what we know of Snape, he would take deliberate humilation by Dumbledore very, very, very, hard indeed, even if he didn't show it outwardly. Dicentra also said: > Slytherins have fully earned their reputations... They're disliked > for the way in which they treat other houses....Granted, maybe not > all Slyths are as bad as Harry thinks they are, but many of them > really are that bad. And worse.... No argument from me there. I'll leave this one for Marina. I said: > > [it's not] OK for Dumbledore to stoop to the Slytherin students' > > level; he is supposed to set an example for them. As someone said, > > Dumbledore is Headmaster and therefore should be impartial. And Dicentra responded: > According to whom? WE certainly think he should remain neutral in > the House rivalries, because that's our idea of fair and proper... How about according to the same person who said "many of [the Slyths] really are that bad. And worse"? In other words, you and I seem to have no problem agreeing on a moral code of conduct that applies to the Potterverse as well as the real world. Otherwise, there'd be no point in your arguing that the Slyths are bad and this whole conversation would be pointless. You don't *really* believe that there's no good and evil (only power and those too weak to seek it), do you? Anyway, even if you and I agree not to apply our own moral standards to the Potterverse, I think one can easily argue that the "House Cup Switch" violated *Dumbledore's* own moral standards. That's why I say it was out of character. Dicentra posited: > Maybe JKR didn't have her chops down yet in Book 1, so Dumbledore's > "tactical error" is actually hers. Well, JKR says she had the main plot mapped out before she started. So, I'd say she had Dumbledore do something that heightened the drama of her story, even though it was out of character for him. Or to put it this way, I don't think the Cup Switch was right, but it did look good in the movie. -- Judy, who wants to convince everyone that poor Snapey-poo is unfairly maligned From gideoner4 at yahoo.com Thu May 2 04:44:40 2002 From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (queen_of_slytherin) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 04:44:40 -0000 Subject: Sirius' Eyes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38396 > Ooooh, a Sirius Black Fan! Isn't it funny that in an era dominated by > image there are so many of us who have a crush on a literary character > who -unlike HRH, Draco or Snape- doesn't have a movie-canon image to be > related to? By the way =Calling out for Sirius's girlfriends out there!= > IIRC Black's eye colour is NOT mentioned in the books - or is it and I > just failed miserably to notice it? > > Nuri I'll answer this post, as I am Sirius' wife. :D His eye color isn't mentioned in canon, and goodness knows how much I searched for it. I'm obsessed with the HP character's eye colors, you see. Anyway, Sirius's Animagus form is described as pale-eyed. Animal versions of humans have a marking (like McGonagall's markings around the eyes when she is in cat form). So I concluded that Sirius's eyes are light--may be blue, grey, grey-blue, or any other light eye shade. ~Lexan, who has spent too much time on eye colors. :D From elfundeb at aol.com Thu May 2 04:54:05 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 00:54:05 EDT Subject: FLINT-y justice, Animal Forms, Fourth Man, Good & Evil, Dissing Slyths Message-ID: <138.db103f6.2a02206d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38397 David, responding to Cindy's comment that the Pensieve trials are FLINT-y: Cindy, I thought you were just joking, but it seems to have become a serious subject of discussion. I can well believe that the Pensieve trials are directly based on material JKR saw when she worked for Amnesty International. Does the apparent lack of due process really make these scenes unconvincing? Me, responding as the person who treated it as a serious comment: IMO it's not the lack of due process that make the Pensieve scenes seem unconvincing (well, inconsistent, really). It's the fact that each defendant gets a different process, so that it's impossible to tell, for example, whether JKR didn't give Crouch and his companions a chance to testify for themselves because they had nothing plotworthy to say or whether she was trying to illustrate how Crouch Sr. was so hell-bent to prove that he was tough enough to send his own son to Azkaban that he forgot to give them what little process they were due; instead, he just jumped right ahead to the sentencing in order to be done with it. As a lawyer, I see sloppy writing, but maybe I'm reading too much into it. Eloise on animagus forms: Any guesses what Harry's animagus form will be? (He *will* be an animagus, won't he? Surely we can't have learnt all this about animagi for him *not* to be one?). Me: I thought it was at least implied in an interview somewhere that Harry would not become an animagus. But surely our knowledge will not be wasted. Hermione has shown an enormous amount of interest in this subject since the day she arrived at Hogwarts, and I'm placing my bets on her. Eloise again, on the weasel: Moreover - and this one I especially like, since I'm apparently the only one on this list who believes that the Weasleys are named after weasels - when I did some further rooting on the Net, I found this (from a review of a book by Kerry A. Shirts, _The Bestiary of Christ_ which unfortunately seems to be out of print): 'The weasel? Yes the weasel was also used for an interesting reason. Since it could pack a punch and win combats with much bigger animals than itself, it was perfect for the Christians who, no matter how weak in themselves, can still triumph over Satan, the most terrifying monster of hell.' So the Weasleys are to have their part in the triumph over Voldemort. Me: Actually, I've already been converted to this view, after stumbling across the following in a discussion of basilisks in Bullfinch's Mythology, from which the Christian symbolism may be derived: "But who was to attack this terrible and unapproachable monster? . . . [The basilisk] quailed before the weasel. The basilisk might look daggers, the weasel cared not, but advanced boldly to the conflict. When bitten, the weasel retired for a moment to eat some rue, . . . returned with renewed strength and soundness to the charge, and never left the enemy till he was stretched dead on the plain." Everything else in the description of the basilisk exactly matches what we are told in CoS, including that the basilisk's stare could be deflected back onto the basilisk with a mirror (which Hermione perhaps did not get a chance to use), making me believe this is JKR's source. So, I, too, believe that the Weasleys will have their day. And there's one final bit that's quite interesting: After death, the carcass would be suspended from the ceiling in private homes as a remedy against spiders. Yet I still like the fact that JKR converted the "weasel" into "Weasley" which has a very English commoner ring to it. Eloise again, concerned about holes in the Fourth Man hovercraft and not convinced by my suggestion that Sirius may have reported incorrect information on Avery, or that the legal proceedings were so procedurally flawed that Avery won a second trial: Sirius doesn't *have* to have been right, does he? And given the imprecise manner in which we've just seen legal procedings described, this *could* be a similar sort of thing. Although I'm not convinced. Even though Cornelius Fudge *Is* Ever so Evil. Which, if I'm not much mistaken, is in danger of taking us back to the Fourth Man as the third DE dead in Voldemort's service. Which seems a bit of a waste of a character, really. Can someone rescucitate him again, please? I like my berth on that hovercraft (and particularly the range of single malts lined up behind the bar!) Me: I'm not going back to FMAT. It's too dull, and IMO Voldemort was protecting Crouch's cover as a spy. In any event, there's an easy way to save the Fourth Man hovercraft. Just dump Avery overboard! After all, Elkins' original premise behind Fourth Man is still fundamentally sound: >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? More to the point, though, this theory (which I hereby dub "The Fourth Man Theory") serves to explain why that mysterious fourth co- defendent goes so suspiciously unnamed throughout all of GoF. [snip] And it also explains Voldemort's utter lack of mention of the Fourth Man during the graveyard scene. He's overflowing with praise for Crouch, and for the Lestranges, and yet he never even mentions the fourth guy? Even if the fourth man had died in Azkaban, wouldn't you think that V would have mentioned him by name? Me: You see, just by snipping all references to Avery, Fourth Man can move forward at full speed. And Avery's still afloat, too. He can still be had with Innocence, Remorse, Toughness, etc. or even Slashy SHIP. In fact, he can trail behind in the old kayak just in case Sirius was wrong, and Avery made a deal with Fudge. We just need to find an alternative Fourth Man. But where? We can't use the Weasley accountant. David has accounted for him already. And I don't think it was anybody in the graveyard. Perhaps this person has not appeared yet in canon. Maybe Fourth Man is even now just escaping from Azkaban. And even if he is dead, maybe he figures prominently in some backstory. Who was kissing Florence behind the greenhouse, anyway? But, alas, Cindy filed the following sad report on the vessel itself: The Fourth Man Hovercraft has been drifting aimlessly for weeks, the mini-bar long depleted and the S'mores quaffed by a certain allegedly Redeemable Minor Character with a voracious appetite. Just like me to approach a vessel only after the refreshments have run out. Finally, Judy wrote: > Yep, I can't accept that Avery was the Fourth Man in the Pensieve > scene, either. In fact, I've been dying for ages to ask whether > people *really* believe that the Fourth Man was Avery, or if the >whole "Fourth Man is Avery" thing is just a joke. That's twice in one day I've been accused of taking a joke seriously [slinking under my chair in embarrassment]. And now it's after midnight and too late to visit the garden of Good and Evil. I'll just add a couple of quick questions to the following from Marina: It seems to me that evil, in the HP universe, is represented by rejection of moral conflict. "No good or evil, only power and those too weak to wield it." For people like Voldemort, Lucius, and Draco (who may not be evil yet, but is rapidly heading in that direction), the only relevant questions about a prospective course of action are "what's in it for me?" and "can I get away with it?" The question "is this the right thing to do?" is irrelevant to them. This explanation of evil in the Potterverse, which I think is dead on, sounds chillingly like the Sorting Hat's description of Slytherin House, "Those cunning folks use any means to achieve their ends." Based on this, being sorted into Slytherin seems to be a virtual death sentence to development of the "good" side of a student. How can this be justified, if the message of these books is about choices? Doesn't the existence of Slytherin House and the basis of the sorting undermine that message? Dumbledore implies that Harry chose not to be in Slytherin. But Draco chose it because his family was there. How does one break the family cycle of bad choices if that's what the Sorting Hat does in close cases? In fact, why should any eleven-year-old child -- even if he thinks he wants to be evil -- be shoved into an environment where the predominant message is in essence the definition of "evil" even if he thinks he wants to be there? Isn't Hogwarts abandoning its moral responsibility? Even though we know that not all Slytherins became DEs, this looks like they've written off one-fourth of the student population as sociopaths the moment they walk through the front door of Hogwarts. Choosing "good" after that kind of indoctrination seems well-nigh impossible. In any event, the way this is set up makes me think that JKR intended Dumbledore's actions at the PS/SS Leaving Feast to rub the Slytherin's noses with the fact that the Good Guys beat the Evil Guys even though everyone knows the Evil Guys play dirty, because he knows the Slytherins are all Evil! anyway so there's no point treating them with respect. I'm not convinced she intended to show Dumbledore making a mistake, though I think he did no less than stoop to the Slytherins' own game. Come to think of it, Snape is starting to look truly heroic for rejecting "evil" and going back to Dumbledore, if he had to put up with this kind of disrespect at Hogwarts. Debbie, who might not recognize a joke if it danced naked in front of her wearing Dobby's tea cozy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Thu May 2 07:59:07 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 07:59:07 -0000 Subject: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) (Was:: Still Life) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38398 [Note: This is a message that I wrote some time ago but then felt reluctant to post, as I thought that so much water had passed under the bridge that it might seem a bit odd to revive the thread in question. I therefore decided just to let it lie fallow. Because it has direct bearing on the portion of this week's Philip Nel discussion question that deals with literary doubles, however, I've now reconsidered my first decision. Note please that my usage of the term "mirror" is far more generalized than that proposed by Robert Rogers and explained in Heidi and Dicentra's terrific Nel message. Apologies for any confusion this might cause. Much of the following was written in response to messages that were posted quite some time ago; the relevant thread dates from late March and begins with Message #36772.] ************************** This is one of a series of follow-ups to "Still Life with Memory Charm" (message #36772). I offer my sincere apologies for the long delay: other matters intervened there for a while, and then, by the time that I got back to this, so many people said such interesting things that it took me quite some time just to process them all! My first response deals with my last question, regarding the thematic relevance of the issues of memory, remembrance, and the past to the story as a whole and to Neville's particular narrative function within it. It touches upon the (IMO) related question of just what Neville fears: why he might choose to downplay his own magical abilities, why Snape should serve as his boggart, and what significance, if any, the appearance of boggart-Snape dressed in Gran's clothing might have. It also explores some of the possible ramifications of the literary parallels between Neville and Harry. Because this particular discussion in no way depends upon the acceptance of any version of the Memory Charm speculation, I have changed the subject line accordingly. ----- Quite some time ago, I asked: > Tell me...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? Dicentra offered to answer: > Dicentra raises her hand, Neville-like: Having argued that Neville's magic is powerful, dangerous and poorly controlled, and that it gets even more poorly controlled whenever he is placed under stress, Elkins calls on Dicentra gently. Oh, so *very* gently. Dicentra: > 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. And by the end of GoF, it already has erupted in a number of people's faces, hasn't it? Dicentra offered as examples Crouch Sr., whose dirty secret is not only exposed but also quite literally *kills* him, and Sirius' wrongful imprisonment without benefit of trial, acknowledgment of which could force public recognition of the Ministry's corruption. I would also suggest that Voldemort's return might represent an undesired "eruption in their faces" for quite a few former Death Eaters other than Karkaroff and Snape. I found Dicentra's conceit of the "filth under the rug" a particularly evocative one. It led me to contemplate the role in GoF of things which are not only hidden, but specifically *buried*, things which then return to the light of day to drive the plot forward. Barty Crouch Jr. is believed not only to have died, but also to have been buried. This is strongly emphasized in "Padfoot Returns" when Sirius recounts, with some degree of emotion, the story of having served as eye-witness to the event. The situation, however, is not what it seems: it is in fact the young man's mother who was buried at Azkaban; he himself underwent a different and more symbolic form of "burial" by spending over a decade both under the mental subsumption of the Imperius Curse and the physical/visual subsumption of the Invisibility Cloak. He is therefore, in a sense, doubly buried -- or perhaps even triply buried. The plot revolves around the havoc that he wreaks once he has been "exhumed." In the end, he turns the tables on his father, transforming him into a bone and burying him, in turn, in Hagrid's pumpkin patch. The buried son who was also the "skeleton in the family closet" is restored to life; it is the father who becomes a buried bone. Paralleling the story of the Crouch family, we then have the saga of the Riddle family. At the story's opening, Elder Riddle has been buried. He is dead and gone; his body has been interred. And yet his murder is never truly "buried" at all for Frank Bryce, who continues for the rest of his life to suffer the social stigma of having been unjustly accused of the crime, a crime actually committed by Riddle's son, in part as a type of vengeance for having himself been "buried:" hidden away in a muggle orphanage, rather than accepted as a member of the family. Young Tom Riddle (and his mother) are themselves dirty secrets, the skeletons in the Riddle family closet, things that had been hidden safely away and out of sight. The exhumation of Elder Riddle's bones is the necessary prerequisite for the spell by which Younger Riddle, as Voldemort, can once more return to the flesh: what was buried is exhumed, what was bone (quite literally in Elder Riddle's case, more figuratively in the case of "skeleton in the closet" Younger Riddle) is transformed to flesh. Here once again, we see a strong connection between three concepts: the father/son bond (further emphasized by the sharing of names); turnabout, or Nemesis; and the idea that the exhumation of things long-buried can bring about a dramatic, violent, and not always positive result. Placed into this context, the Niffler scene interests me very much. Here, the buried material is illusory money, leprechaun gold. Its exhumation leads to a reawakening of Ron's frustration with his family's poverty and his resentment of Harry's own wealth. In this case, however, the exhumation has no dire effects. Ron weathers it. He is able (perhaps because it is merely *illusory* gold?) to overcome his frustration and his envy: he does not allow the event to lead to a second schism in his friendship with Harry. Nonetheless, it seems to me that the financial concerns of the Weasleys do play a strong background role in GoF. Ron's quarrel with Harry, the Twins' conflict with Molly, the Twins' blackmail subplot, and Percy's desperation to prove himself on the job (a desperation which allows him to be manipulated into unwittingly aiding Voldemort's plan) are all, as I see it, motivated in large part by the Weasley children's attempts to come to some terms with their family's poverty. Undercurrents of tension and discord underscore the Weasley family dynamics throughout GoF; it is difficult for me not to view their financial difficulties as one of the leading causes of this disharmony. Although Ron resists the negative temptations of the Niffler scene, therefore, I still tend to read it as thematically tied to the dangerous role that exhumed items play throughout the novel. And yet that which was buried and is later exhumed can also prove beneficial. I do not think it coincidental that the novel's climactic conflict should take place in a graveyard, nor that the outcome should be decided by wand cores of Phoenix feather, by the spirits of the temporarily reawakened dead, by the Ghosts of Spells Past. Revival of the past can help as well as harm; sometimes, as in the end of PoA, it can even protect and heal. Dicentra 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. It's an interesting parallel, to be sure. Neville, whether Memory Charmed or not, is notorious for his "poor" memory. And yet, whether for reasons psychological or magical or both, something certainly does seem to be interfering with his ability to function. Crouch's demonstration of the Cruciatus upsets him tremendously. The past would seem to be affecting him very strongly, and yet he is the one who, it is claimed, "cannot remember." I do see a strong parallel here with wizarding culture overall. A culture whose children are not told even the most basic facts about the last war -- and yet reenact its schismatics on a daily basis in their feuds and rivalries at Hogwarts. A culture whose members simultaneously insist that Voldemort is gone, never to return -- and yet fear to speak his name out loud. A culture whose adults all seem to share the tacit understanding that many of its most well-respected members are also unrepentent practitioners of dark magic. Is this memory, or is it forgetfulness? Is what's afflicting this culture that it is *trapped* in the past, or that it refuses to *remember* the past? Well, both, I'd say. Both. In this respect, I can also see Neville's parents as a kind of personification of the wizarding world. We are told that they "do not recognize" their own son. And yet what could their madness be, if not a kind of perpetual reenactment of their past suffering? Are they amnesiac, or are they trapped within their own memories? What lies at the core of their dysfunction: that they *cannot* remember, or that they remember certain things not wisely, but too well? Again, I think that the answer is: both. What is wrong with the Longbottom family -- and with the wizarding world as a whole, as I see it -- is an inability to deal with the past in a healthy manner: what ought to be remembered is forgotten, while what should have been let go is retained. Or, as Gulplum quite succinctly put it: > The ability to forget is as important to the health of the human > psyche as the ability to remember. Yes. Dicentra: > 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 agree with Dicentra, and I must also confess here to a streak of sheer black envy (always a very dangerous thing in the Potterverse, as we all know!), because she expressed all of that so much better than I could ever have done myself. I also find myself wondering, though, to what extent *remembering* may not also be problematic. All of the books have placed some degree of emphasis on the problems inherent in dwelling, in holding on far too tightly to the past: grudge, vengeance, depression, distraction. Porphyria did a very good job in message #36787, I thought, of itemizing some of the ways in which Harry's memories are shown throughout the books to be both seductive and dangerous. I think that the burial motif in GoF also strongly supports this reading. Burying things away may be problematic, but exhuming them again is always a risky proposition. The legacy of the past does help Harry to escape from the graveyard, but it is also what enables Voldemort to rise again. Neville is indeed not functioning well. Unlike Harry, he is profoundly ineffectual. But also unlike Harry, he is -- and this is the word that nearly always seems to be dredged up to describe him -- "sweet." He is charitable, forgiving. He is not prone to anger, and he seems to possess very little in the way of malice. Above all else, he does no harm. Sweet, dear, sensitive Neville -- why, he's just a little angel, isn't he? Is anyone else here a fan of the Ever So Cheesy cult film _Barbarella?_ The last line of the movie is: "Angels have no memories." But what about avenging angels? Dicentra: > 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, there is an unsettling sense of "just you wait" about Neville as he is presented in GoF, isn't there? A sense of something coiled to spring? A sense of even the lowliest worm will turn? But is turning really what we as readers want for Neville? Is it really what Neville wants for himself? "Because I do not hope to turn again Because I do not hope Because I do not hope to turn Desiring this man's gift and that man's scope I no longer strive to strive for such things..." In my first message on this subject, I proposed that to whatever extent Neville's poor memory may be beyond his control, many aspects of his apparent feebleness, his apparent inability to *compete,* seem to be his own doing. I cited my reasons for suspecting that Neville himself goes out of his way to encourage others to view him, incorrectly, as "nearly a Squib," and as a bit of a coward as well. I expressed my belief that whenever Neville is forced into conflict, he deliberately plays to lose. Porphyria wrote: > 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. And then promptly answered her own question: > 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? Yes. I think that's what scares him. Like Porphria herself, as well as Gulplum, Tabouli, Dogberry, and others who were kind enough to respond, I think that Neville is afraid of power. That is a large part of what I think that Snape represents to him: power, and not only power in the general sense, but even more specifically, power as it seems to find its primary expression in the traditional culture of the wizarding world. JKR's wizarding society strikes me as above all else a *competitive* culture. It is capitalist, combatative; it is obsessed with sport. Duelling is not only legal, but also sufficiently socially acceptable that it is taught to schoolchildren as an extracurricular activity; one of Professor Flitwick's credentials as a Professor of Charms is that he was once a duelling champion. The entire structure of Hogwarts is based around competition. Everything, from academics to athletics to comportment, is viewed as fair game for the allocation and docking of "points" which apply towards the attainment of an item which serves a purely symbolic function: the House Cup. The House Cup is nothing but a trophy. It confers no actual benefit to the members of the House which possesses it. It is a pure expression of winning for the sake of winning. And yet the entire student body would seem to be terribly invested in its attainment. They are willing to allow their desire for this empty symbol to motivate their actions to a degree that at times seems quite ludicrous. (Are *none* of these otherwise seemingly bright students capable of realizing that the Cup is nothing but a chimera? I always find myself wondering, not without a certain degree of irritation. Can't *any* of them see through that particular ploy? Or is it just that we never meet any of those students, because they were all sorted into Ravenclaw?) In such a cultural context, power is not merely power. It is power as expressed through pride and ambition, power as expressed through competition, conflict, certamen. It is power as expressed through struggle. It is power as expressed through striving and through strife. That is what I believe that Neville fears, and that is what I think that he sees personified in Snape. It is a very masculine type of power, and viewed in this context, Snape's targetting of the toad Trevor takes on some unavoidably Freudian overtones. In spite of having proposed in my last message that Trevor might serve as a textual symbol of Neville's magical potency itself, I'd been hoping to avoid getting *too* Freudian with this analysis, but...oh, well, it's just so hard to avoid with Neville, isn't it? The poor boy really does seem to be quite the mass of Freudian conflict. And besides, it's fun, so let's go for it. After all, as Pippin and Tabouli have had a blast discussing, frogs and toads have a long history of standing in as representations of masculine sexuality, and the concept of wizards' animal companions as repositories or symbols of their potency has some very deep roots as well. So when Snape threatens Trevor in Potions class, or forces Neville to disembowel toads as his detention, I'm afraid that I *do* tend to read that as a castration threat. In essence, I think that the message that Neville himself must be taking away from it is: "Use it or lose it, boy!" Small wonder that Snape scares him so. And while we're grovelling around down here in the dirt with the psychoanalytic theory, how *about* those cauldrons, eh? Gulplum wrote: > 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? Mmmmmmm. Well. We could go off on quite the riff here, I suppose, about what it might mean for Dreaded Dark Animus Snape to encourage the fire of Neville's suppressed masculinity to erupt forth, melting right through the protective womb-like enclosure of the cauldron, couldn't we? If you favor both "Gran gave Neville a Memory Charm" and "Snape is trying to crack Neville's Memory Charm," then such an interpretation would certainly give you plenty of room to maneuver. Or, if you prefer, we could contemplate instead the symbolic connection between a cauldron with a melted bottom and the flawed receptive vessel of a mind that cannot retain memory. Here we touch on Jung: memory is the repository of culture, the cauldron is the receptacle of the collective unconscious, and the effect of Neville's poorly-controlled magic is to render his own internalized cauldron inoperative, thus cutting him off from both the benefits and the dangers of his own cultural legacy. Is "a mind like a bottomless cauldron" the wizarding equivalent of "a mind like a leaky sieve," perhaps? Or, for that matter, a mind like a leaky PENsieve? Perhaps. So if what Snape represents to Neville is power, then how does that relate to the ongoing motif of memory? Porphyria wrote: > 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. I think that it does. We really have two conceptual clusters here: one involving power, competition, struggle and strife, and the other involving issues of memory, remembrance, history and the past. In Neville's case (and, I would argue, in the books as a whole), these two clusters seem to be inextricably thematically linked. And I think that they are both represented very neatly by the figure of Snape. After all, Snape doesn't really represent power to *us,* does he? I would say that Dumbledore and Voldemort, taken together, stake a far stronger claim to that role than Snape does. What Snape *does* often represent to the reader, I think, is *memory,* and a particularly negative manifestation of memory at that. Snape, it seems to me, often stands in as a personification of the perils of memory retention: grudge, envy, bitterness, resentment. He also often stands in as a personification of the shadow side of the desire for attainment: not glory, but thwarted ambition; not the noblesse oblige of the gracious conqueror, but the twisted vindictiveness of the seething and resentful conquered. Where these two conceptual clusters converge, there we find Snape. There we also find vengeance. "Vengeance is very sweet," quoth Snape. In my original message, I asked: > 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 then went on to invite speculation about just what it might mean for Neville's boggart Snape to appear dressed in Gran's clothing. Eileen, who sometimes seems to understand how my mind works so well that frankly she scares me just a little, all but read my thoughts when she likened the wizarding world to the culture of Livian Rome. (Did Eileen somehow *know* that this was my academic focus back in my University days? I found myself wondering. Or was that just an amazingly inspired deduction?) In addition to making me laugh out loud by translating Neville's family name to "Lombottomi," she also wrote: > 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. I am convinced that Neville's family wants him to become an auror. The members of his family, particularly Gran herself, would seem to speak to him often about his duties and obligations in regard to the family name. When Gran sends Neville a howler in PoA, the nature of its complaint is that he has "brought shame on the whole family." "She's always going on about how I should be upholding the family honor," Neville tells the others, in a "gloomy voice," right after the Triwizard Tournament is first announced in GoF. I also find it telling that Gran sends him that Remembrall. It is, as others have pointed out, a completely useless item, even a somewhat mocking one. It serves only to remind you that there is something that you have forgotten, something that you have neglected to do. But then, that certainly does convey quite a message in and of itself, doesn't it? Eileen: > Taking Neville every year to see his parents? "Will you let > this wrong stay unrighted? Will you forget what has been done > to us?" Here, Neville. Have a Remembrall. Yes. You're welcome. > 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. Yes, that was *precisely* what I was trying to get at when I wrote about the significance of Neville's boggart: the image of Snape, the archetypical Proud and Vindictive Wizard, dressed in Gran's clothes. What I was hoping to suggest there was that both of these figures, Gran and Snape, might represent to Neville the cultural expectations that have been laid upon him as the scion of an old, proud and pureblooded family, as the only son of a heroic and effectively martyred Auror father. I was hoping to suggest that together they might serve to stand in as animus and anima of the entire warrior culture of the wizarding world, of its dynamics of hatred and strife: the grudges that get passed down through the generations, the endless cycle of violence begetting violence begetting violence. I cling to the feeble hope that there may be some significance to be found in the fact that Neville *was* capable of banishing the SnapeGranBoggart. Oh, but I am afraid. I am very much afraid. I am afraid that... > 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? Yes! Yes, that's it! That is *exactly* what I fear. After all, wouldn't that just be a kind of reiteration of what she did with him at the end of PS/SS? > If so, I now begin to see why you think JKR isn't on your side, or > my side either. Or, for that matter, on Neville's side. Because... > 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. That's exactly my reading of Neville. He wants to avoid the entire dynamic. He does not hope to turn again, he does not hope to turn. He no longer strives to strive towards such things. "Why should I mourn The vanished power of the usual reign?" And indeed, why on earth should he? Why on earth should any of us? But I have this horrible feeling that JKR might disagree with me there. Eileen: > 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. Occasions, sadly, do. And besides, Neville could be an avenging angel and *still* become a teacher, couldn't he? Oh. I am wary. I am ever so wary. As I believe that Eileen herself once wrote (causing my inner classicist to chortle with glee): "Consider no author trustworthy until she is *finished.*" Porphyria had some very insightful things to say about legacies: > 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. I very much like this reading, and I am swooningly grateful to Porphyria for her suggestion of the word "legacy." Legacy is the perfect term for the concept I have been trying to wrap my mind around, I think, because it encompasses both of those conceptual clusters that I mentioned before: it touches on both the issues of history and the past, and also on those of ambition and attainment. The word "legacy" also serves well here because it carries with it both negative and positive connotations. There are legacies of wealth, and then there are legacies of horror. A legacy can be either good or bad. Usually, it is a bit of both. Harry benefits in many obvious ways from his legacy as a Potter. His mother's love protects him, both as an infant and at the end of PS/SS, and his championing of her memory helps to sustain him during his confrontation with Riddle at the end of CoS. His father -- represented both as the incarnation of Harry's future self and as Harry's Prongs Patronus -- appears to protect him at the end of PoA, and James' memory is what saves Lupin and Sirius from their own vengeful impulses in the Shrieking Shack. The reminder of his father's past heroism is what gives Harry the strength to resist Voldemort in the graveyard at the end of GoF (when *will* Voldemort learn to stop taunting Harry about his parents?), and his parents' temporarily-resurrected spirits aid in his escape. And yet his legacy also harms him, and in far more ways than the exceptionally powerful enemy that he has inherited. Harry is highly vulnerable to the siren song of the Mirror of Erised, to the draining power of the Dementors, to the temptations of ambition and of anger. The desire to avenge his parents very nearly leads him to murder Sirius in the Shrieking Shack. Eileen wrote: > Remember Draco Malfoy telling Harry that he'd want personal revenge > on Black if he were in Harry's shoes? Oh, yes. That I do. And as it happens, once Harry learns the story of Sirius Black's supposed role in his parents' murder, he *does* want vengeance on him, doesn't he? He wants that very badly. And he wants it so very badly in large part because of all of that time he has spent being forced by the Dementors (and by the boggart Dementor) to listen to the sound of his parents' murders, to the voice of his mother pleading helplessly for his life. That is what drives him to such anger, to that desire for vengeance. What drives Harry to the desire for vengeance is *memory.* One of the things that has always most intrigued me about the notion of amnesiac Neville is its implication for the contrast that I perceive between Neville's forgiving and pacifistic nature and Harry's own tendencies to anger and violence. There are strong parallels between the two characters. They have very similar family histories. Both were effectively orphaned by the last war. Both have every "right" to feel themselves deeply invested in the upcoming conflict. Both would seem to have been subjected to rather harsh upbringings. And both of them were placed into House Gryffindor by the Sorting Hat...but only after a long hesitation. But just look at the differences between them! Neville exhibits very little in the way of True Warrior Spirit. He doesn't seem to hold any particular grudge even against the Slytherins, who torment him, nor does he often express anger. He is always being exhorted by others to "stand up for himself," but the few times that we actually see him *doing* so, he seems to be doing it far more to conform to others' expectations than to please himself. He certainly does lack self-assertion, and this can at times make him unreliable: at the beginning of PoA, he tells Malfoy about Harry's reaction to the dementors; at the beginning of GoF, he either slinks away from or remains utterly silent throughout (the text is unclear) the confrontation on the train. His poor memory causes problems for him, as does his timidity. His flaws are the flaws of quietism: he suffers from a certain lassitude, an unwillingness or an inability to engage head-on with the trials of the world. But he also lacks both pride and anger, and he seems to possess very little in the way of malice: Neville may fear Snape a great deal, but he never gives the slightest indication of wishing him harm. Harry, on the other hand, has no difficulties at all with self- assertion. He is admirable in his exhibition of all of the classic warrior virtues. He is exceptionally courageous and strong-willed; he defends the weak; he has a strong sense of honor. He's also prone to all of the corresponding warrior vices: pride, anger, violence, ambition, vengeance. He is deeply competitive. When Snape angers Harry, Harry fantasizes about casting the Cruciatus Curse on him. If we accept some variation on the notion that Neville's memory is suppressed (regardless of how this came about), then it is very tempting -- for me, at least -- to view these differences in behavior as partly a reflection of the difference between those who can remember the past, and those who cannot. This seems to me to fit in very neatly with the way that the books, particularly PoA and GoF, have already dealt with the effects of the past on the present: the deeply corrupting influence of past wrongs, the profoundly redemptive influence of past love. Harry, as one who can remember the past, can be both helped and harmed by it. Neville, by virtue of being cut off -- or having cut himself off -- from his past, reaps none of its benefits, but neither is he exposed to its more corrupting and baleful influences. Porphyria asked me what I meant by emphasizing the fact that the Sorting Hat took a very long time with Neville: > Were you thinking the Hat was tempted to sort him into Slytherin? Oh, dear! Oh. No. No, I wasn't. That *would* be a sorry fate for someone terrified of competition, wouldn't it? No, that wasn't really what I meant to imply at all, although I suppose that by calling Neville "sneaky," I did rather. No, what I was thinking at the time was really two entirely separate things: one of them far more subversive than the other. The first thing that I was thinking was that Neville, as Harry's mirror and as someone desperate to avoid conflict, probably spent an awfully long time trying to convince the Hat *not* to put him in Gryffindor. I imagine him sitting there on that stool thinking "Not Gryffindor, please not Gryffindor, please, *anywhere* but Gryffindor..." But of course, because Neville is the anti-Harry, the Hat just ignored him completely. The second and to my mind far more intriguing possibility lurking at the back of my mind, though, was that the entire paradigm by which the Sorting Hat evaluates character might, in some sense, not have applied very well to Neville at *all* due to his estrangement, whether voluntary or not, from his own culture. Culture is, after all, itself a type of legacy. It is passed down from parent to child, it is conveyed through history. To some extent, it resides in the memory. But memory is precisely what we are told that Neville lacks. The possibility that the Sorting Hat's dilemma with Harry was due to Harry's role as the possible unifier of all four Houses has been discussed here often in the past. People have pointed out that in the Hat's musings, it touches upon all four of the Houses' criteria before offering Harry a place first in Slytherin, and then in Gryffindor. Some have speculated that this might represent Harry's role as a kind of exemplar, an embodiment of all *four* of the founders and thus, by extension, of a holistic unification of the wizarding world. If we accept this premise, and if we agree that Harry and Neville can be read as shadow images, or as mirrors, to one another, then what do we make of the Hat's long hesitation over Neville? Could it be that just as Harry reaps both the benefits and the drawbacks of his heritage, while Neville accepts neither of them, so Harry answers the Sorting Hat's fundamental question with "All of the Above," while Neville answers: "None of the above?" A very long time ago, so long ago that I have long since lost the message number, Tabouli wrote: > Hmm. I wonder what made JKR choose the qualities she did to > identify the houses? > - Courage > - Ambition > - Diligence > - Intellect > ... why these four qualities? Obviously you can't get completely > mutually exclusive qualities, but you could get less overlap than > those four. Yes. You certainly could. Really, they're very telling, aren't they? They represent only the hard virtues. Where are sensitivity, imagination, creativity, spiritual insight? Where are the Christian virtues of humility, charity, faith or temperance? If I were forced to hazard a guess as to what quality or virtue Neville most strongly values, both in himself and in others, I would probably say "compassion." It is what Ginny, in GoF, says that he gave as his reason for asking Hermione to the Yule Ball: not that she was smart or clever or faithful or brave, or even pretty, but that she had been *kind.* But compassion, it would seem, was not a trait that any of the four founders particularly valued or sought in their students. I joked around a bit in an earlier post about Indeterminate Neville, citing the student list's lack of any symbols at all next to Neville's name as proof of his status ("You see? That proves it! He *is* Indeterminate!"), but all joking aside, this is very much how I see Neville's position at this point in the story: as strangely indeterminate, or perhaps even indeterminable, a figure who seems to be standing outside of the circumscriptions of his own culture and who therefore may have the ability to *change* that culture in a far more deep and profound manner than someone like Harry ever can. Harry, by accepting the power of his legacy, must also accept its restrictions. Neville, by rejecting his legacy, might enjoy an unusual degree of freedom from the snares and the patterns of history. "Because I know that time is always time And place is always and only place And what is actual is actual only for one time And only for one place..." Considering Neville's memory problems as indicative of a fundamental rejection of history leads me to contemplate the ever-mounting and often confusing proliferation of generational parallels that the text seems to go out of its way to suggest to readers -- Draco/Snape, Draco/Lucius, Ron/Sirius, Ron/Arthur, Neville/Peter, Ginny/Lily, Hermione/Lily, Hermione/Remus, Harry/James, Harry/Riddle, Harry/Dumbledore, Voldemort/Grindelwald, and so on and so forth -- almost all of them incomplete or contradictory or unconvincing, or in some other way profoundly unsatisfying. History, the text seems to be suggesting, both does and does not repeat itself: it may or it may not; it can or it can't. Individual choice is vital, but choice is also constrained by the circumstances already laid in place. The extent to which any of the characters really have any choice at all in their affairs is to my mind one of the great tensions of the series as a whole. I think that as readers, we can state with some certainty that our strong and heart-felt desire is for history *not* to repeat itself, or at least not precisely as it did the last time around. But the question then becomes: to what extent does knowledge of the past help or hinder this goal? Is it really those who are unaware of history who are doomed to repeat it? Or is it perhaps *only* those who choose to reject history who stand the slightest chance of resisting the patterns that history imposes upon the culture and those who live within it? Or does the truth lie somewhere in between? Which attitude is more likely to lead to a repetition of the horrors of the past: Neville's or Harry's? If we take as a starting assumption that the Sorting Hat's long hesitation with Neville represented a classification of "None of the Above," while its dilemma over Harry was one of "All of the Above," then what does that say about their respective relationships to the culture and history of the world that they live in? About their respective abilities to avoid becoming ensnared in the negative patterns of the past? About their respective abilities to draw off of the strengths provided by the positive aspects of the past? Would Neville with a restored memory become more like Harry? Would this necessarily be a Good Thing? People who believe that Neville has a memory charm often speculate that this charm will eventually be removed, and that when it does, Neville will "come into his own." He will be able to access previously-suppressed reservoirs of magical power; he will gain self- confidence; he will become SUPER-Neville. He will go out and kick DE butt. He will bring honor to the family name; he will exhibit Proper Pure-blooded Wizarding Pride. He will become at last a True Warrior- Spirited Gryffindor. I lie awake sometimes at night, fearing that something like this might indeed be the author's intent. Because if it is, then I won't view it as a triumph for the forces of Good at all. I will view it as a horrible horrible tragedy. "And pray to God to have mercy upon us And I pray that I might forget These matters that with myself I too much discuss Too much explain Because I do not hope to turn again Let these words answer For what is done, not to be done again May the judgement not be too heavy upon us..." In terms of their respective coming-of-age stories, Harry and Neville seem to me to represent mirrored archetypes. Harry's story is that of the orphan boy revealed to be the heir to the throne. His adoptive family had denied him the knowledge of the potency of his legacy: his magical power, his financial wealth, the social status that he holds by default within the wizarding world. His story then, the coming of age story that accompanies his own particular archetype, is one of acceptance, of "coming into ones own" by proving oneself worthy of the legacy that one has inherited, and by learning to accept that legacy's negative aspects along with its positive ones. Neville, on the other hand, I tend to read as a representation of the opposing archetype: the prince renunciate, the abdicator or the apostate. Neville has always known that he is (or that he is "supposed to be") a wizard. He has always known that his family is old and proud and well-respected, that they are "pureblood." He has always known that his father was a kind of a war hero, albeit a martyred one. And he has always been aware -- far too well aware, I'd say -- of the role that he is expected to play within his society. And he's running away from it just as fast as he can. His story, the coming of age story that accompanies Neville's type, is one of renunciation, rather than of acceptance, of "coming into ones own" by finding the strength to *reject* the legacy and to forge instead a new destiny of ones own choosing. In this respect, Harry and Neville are themselves mirrored by GoF's two parricidal villains, aren't they? Voldemort, as Harry's nemesis, is himself an orphan-revealed-to-be-heir. And Crouch Jr. serves as Neville's shadow, the darker manifestation of the renunciate, the Golden Boy turned apostate. With Neville (not to mention Crouch), JKR has certainly shown us quite a bit of the perils of renunciation. She has not shown us very much of its advantages. I suspect that this is because her authorial vision does not encompass them. I find this extremely disappointing, admittedly largely for autobiographical reasons: I am, you see, a bit of a renunciate myself. But I also find it disappointing on far less personal (if perhaps equally idiosyncratic) philosophical grounds. I would very much like to see some challenge offered to the fundamental tenets of the Potterverse's wizarding culture. I would very much like to see *someone* within the series show the capacity to think outside of the box represented by those four horrid Houses of Hogwarts School. I would like to see someone question a few of the assumptions which serve as the foundations for the culture of the wizarding world. I would like to feel, upon closing Book Seven, that a sequel starring the next generation of young wizards had not been left as a virtual inevitability. I would believe that it is possible to walk away from Omelas. ----- Something about talking about the theme of memory seems to inspire people to quote poetry. Porphyria cited Browning, and then Eileen provided us with the verses, after herself sliding into Shakespearean iambics. And yet I notice that no one seemed to fix upon the poem that was stuck in my own mind when I wrote my original message on this topic, the poem that was responsible for my decision to call it a "*Still* Life." "Because these wings are no longer wings to fly But merely vans to beat the air The air which is now thoroughly small and dry Smaller and dryer than the will Teach us to care and not to care Teach us to sit still. Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death Pray for us now and at the hour of our death." TS Eliot, from "Ash-Wednesday," 1930 A very happy May Day/Beltane/Workers International Day to you all. -- Elkins, indebted to Fiat Incantatum for reminding her of those who walk away from Omelas From katgirl at lava.net Thu May 2 08:25:45 2002 From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 08:25:45 -0000 Subject: Unnamed characters; The DADA spot and photos. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38399 "He was the *o'ny* man for the job. An' I mean the on'y one. Gettin' very difficult ter find anyone fer the Dark Arts job. People aren't too keen ter take it on, see. They're startin' ter think it's jinxed. No one's lasted long fer a while now." -Hagrid, CoS7. Now, we already know that Quirrell has been one of the teachers who couldn't stay teaching. But I hardly think one person counts as "fer a while." So who was there before him? Do we know them already? Are they important? What happened to them, and where have they been since? A rather unusual one would be that Arthur Weasley once taught. I don't know how well this fits into the canon-but we have a timeframe of several years. So who knows? Teachers get bad salaries-I don't know if this is true in the WW, but I don't see why it wouldn't be. He could have learned of the Imperius curse in this way. Only problem is, I think Arthur has been in the MoM since he graduated, and I doubt he's moved since. Besides, I like the Arthur Weasley under Imperius curse better. Now. Onto another group of unnamed people. Who donated pictures to Harry's photo album? Hagrid said he got a bunch of the Potter's old friends to give them to him, but we never learn who they were. Professor McGonagall might have kept some around, and Dumbledore might have as well. But the only other people I can actually think of are Remus Lupin, Arabella Figg, and Mundungus Fletcher. I have no doubt that other members of the Order were friends with the Potters. But wait; let's look a little more closely at Remus, Arabella, and Mundungus first. Remus, IMHO, sunk into a depressed state after Voldemort's fall. Who wouldn't, if they were in the same position? Your best friends were either just killed or responsible for the deaths of the others; you have to go through a painful transformation once a month; the baby of two of the aforementioned friends are living with his terrible aunt and uncle, you have trouble getting a job.... Maybe this had faded, to a degree, by the end of book one. After all, it had been 11 years, and while the deaths are likely still painful to think about, he can deal with it. So maybe he took a few of his photos and gave them to Hagrid. You want me to give you photos that I just want to blip from my memory? Here you go. Take them all. (This memory-blipping thing sounds cold, but it would be the attitude I'd take to it. Remus is a reasonable person; he knows the danger of casting a memory charm on himself, which might be even more dangerous in his case, because who knows what it affects during the full moon? Other spells don't alter the transformation because they're temporary, but he knows better to just hope for the best. In fact, hoping for the best GOT him into this situation, didn't it?) Arabella Figg. This might be used as evidence for the Arabella/Polyjuice theory, and it is a lot more likely under that theory, but it can work without it. Arabella, after all, agreed to watch Harry for 11 years and has likely done even longer. (We don't hear from her after SS.) So maybe she knew them in school, or got to know them in the order. (I'm trying to keep everyone happy; can you tell? ^_^) Mundungus Fletcher. We don't know nearly enough about Mundungus to say anything here, though circumstances are probably similar to Arabella's; during school or in the Order. And does anyone else think that one of the younger members would want a better name than the Order of the Phoenix? I mean, it's probably supposed to be wonderful symbolism; the Phoenix rising from the ashes and spreading new life. Imagine how some might have reacted to this. Eventually though, somebody would get tired of this wonderful symbolism, beautiful as it is. Probably one of the younger members. So, this younger member (Let's call her Celeste Sinistra. *g*) decides to think up a new name. She (or he, I guess. Sinistra is my favorite character as far as people-we-know-absolutely-nothing-about go.) plays around with possibilities for a while, and then she hits upon it. Death Cheaters. This, naturally, becomes a popular name amongst the younger people. Just a thought. -Katherine From Edblanning at aol.com Thu May 2 11:08:53 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 07:08:53 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fourth Man, Good & Evil.../Weasleys Message-ID: <61.1f206ee3.2a027845@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38400 Debbie: I'm not going back to FMAT. It's too dull, and IMO Voldemort was protecting > Crouch's cover as a spy. In any event, there's an easy way to save the > Fourth Man hovercraft. Just dump Avery overboard! After all, Elkins' > original premise behind Fourth Man is still fundamentally sound: > > >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? > > More to the point, though, this theory (which I hereby dub "The > Fourth Man Theory") serves to explain why that mysterious fourth co- > defendent goes so suspiciously unnamed throughout all of GoF. [snip] > And it also explains Voldemort's > utter lack of mention of the Fourth Man during the graveyard scene. > He's overflowing with praise for Crouch, and for the Lestranges, and > yet he never even mentions the fourth guy? Even if the fourth man > had died in Azkaban, wouldn't you think that V would have mentioned > him by name? > > Me: > You see, just by snipping all references to Avery, Fourth Man can move > forward at full speed. And Avery's still afloat, too. He can still be had > with Innocence, Remorse, Toughness, etc. or even Slashy SHIP. In fact, he > can trail behind in the old kayak just in case Sirius was wrong, and Avery > made a deal with Fudge. We just need to find an alternative Fourth Man. > But > where? We can't use the Weasley accountant. David has accounted for him > already. And I don't think it was anybody in the graveyard. Perhaps this > person has not appeared yet in canon. Maybe Fourth Man is even now just > escaping from Azkaban. And even if he is dead, maybe he figures > prominently > in some backstory. Who was kissing Florence behind the greenhouse, anyway? > > But, alas, Cindy filed the following sad report on the vessel itself: > > The Fourth Man Hovercraft has been drifting aimlessly for weeks, the > mini-bar long depleted and the S'mores quaffed by a certain > allegedly Redeemable Minor Character with a voracious appetite. > > Just like me to approach a vessel only after the refreshments have run out. > > > Finally, Judy wrote: > > > Yep, I can't accept that Avery was the Fourth Man in the Pensieve > > scene, either. In fact, I've been dying for ages to ask whether > > people *really* believe that the Fourth Man was Avery, or if the > >whole "Fourth Man is Avery" thing is just a joke. Eloise: (all the above is quoted from Debbie) Yeah. Dump poor Avery, then it all works. But wasn't the whole thing about the Fourth Man Kayak/ Hovercraft, whatever, the identification of the Fourth man with Avery? Was I missing the point? No, I've just read Cindy's post. That was precisely the point. Cindy : >Oh, ye of little faith! >Ah, look at the exact quote: >"Avery -- from what I've heard he wormed his way out of trouble by >saying he'd been acting under the Imperius Curse -- he's still at >large Eloise: But you see, it was that 'still' that bothered me. To me that makes it sound like he never did go to Azkaban, although I suppose it *could* mean he's not been re-arrested. OTOH, we do have (evil!)Fudge being made MoM and I agree that that could change everything. Avery's appeal is allowed, but Sirius is put away without even a trial. It would be consistent. (I've just realised that Sirius' apparent strange omission to do anything to get himself released could be precisely because he *didn't* have a trial: there wasn't a conviction to appeal against). But certainly, there is a convincing case for the Fourth man to have some significance, isn't there? I've just skimmed throught the graveyard scene again. I think one of the issues that may have clouded things is the question of exactly how many gaps there are. She doesn't really say. When she describes the circle, she just says that there are gaps in it. Voldemort then goes on specifically to remark on the two-person Lestrage gap and the six- person one, (the three dead and the deserter, the coward and the faithful servant). This, she tells us is the *biggest* gap. Now, assuming that this isn't an example of sloppy grammar (which I suppose we can't exclude), this implies that there are more than two gaps in the circle and that implicitly Voldemort has passed at least one other empty DE space without comment. So I think we have three possibilities for Fourth Man. 1. He's Avery 2. FMAT, which is, as Debbie says, dull (though I not sure that I buy the protecting Crouch's cover as spy idea, for all that it make Severus Snape Ever So Evil) 3. He's an unspecified gap in the circle. Now I *do* think it's very strange that he doesn't get special mention in the way the Lestranges do. Again, there are three possibilities: 1. He's Avery, so he does get mention, but not praise bacause he' done nothing since wheedling his way aout of Azkaban. 2. He's dead, so is mentioned in passing, with the other dead DEs.(FMAT) 3. Voldemort is protecting *his* identity (and incidentally, JKR is shielding it from us, which in turn means that *he is significant*) On balance, I don't like FMAT. Why bring up the Fourth Man at all, if his only other (non) appearance is as a corpse? Nah, I've argued myself out of that one. So I'm left with his either being (In over His Head) Avery or yet another character yet to be revealed. Anonymous Yet To Be Revealed Fourth Man, I think, has a lot of potential. He could even come with lots of Big Bangs, don't y'know, Cindy? And we've still got Avery, who can be a whingy mascot (figurehead? Can hovercrafts have figureheads?) *And* we may still have room for that other, unknown dead DE (I still maintain that it is *not* Quirrell), unless we assume that the third dead DE is Voldemort's cover for Crouch or Fourth Man. ******************************** Weasleys........ I am delighted to find that Debbie has also found evidence for the weasel as an animal of great symbolic significance and come to the same conclusion as I have that the name indicate that they have an important part to play in the battle ahead. Acronym, anyone? ************************************ Debbie again; >This explanation of evil in the Potterverse [the view embraced by Marina and myself >that evil in the Potterverse = the rejection of moral conflict], which I think is dead >on, sounds chillingly like the Sorting Hat's description of Slytherin House, "Those >cunning folks use any means to achieve their ends." Based on this, being >sorted into Slytherin seems to be a virtual death sentence to development of >the "good" side of a student. How can this be justified, if the message of >these books is about choices? Doesn't the existence of Slytherin House and >the basis of the sorting undermine that message? Dumbledore implies that >Harry chose not to be in Slytherin. But Draco chose it because his family >was there. How does one break the family cycle of bad choices if that's what >the Sorting Hat does in close cases? In fact, why should any eleven-year-old >child -- even if he thinks he wants to be evil -- be shoved into an >environment where the predominant message is in essence the definition of >"evil" even if he thinks he wants to be there? Isn't Hogwarts abandoning its >moral responsibility? Even though we know that not all Slytherins became DEs, >this looks like they've written off one-fourth of the student population as >sociopaths the moment they walk through the front door of Hogwarts. Choosing >"good" after that kind of indoctrination seems well-nigh impossible. Eloise: It's uncomfortable, isn't it? My reflection is that it is, unfortunately, rather an accurate reflection of real life, where cycles of deprivation, abuse, bad choices etc. *do* happen. Dumbledore is not an embodiment of pure goodness (*pace* JKR!) and neither are his actions. He is flawed and his actions are flawed. Hogwarts is *not* the Kingdom of Heaven and I think to set it up as such, for instance, as opposed to Durmstrang is a mistake. Hogwarts under Dumbledore embraces all, whatever their strengths and virtues, whatever their weaknesses and faults. This, I think is its strength. This is why Slytherins can't just be thrown out, as some have suggested, not even, I would venture, under the circumstances of parents (or even students) being known supporters of Voldemort in the conflict to come. Now, the House system *is* troublesome, I agree, in that it does seem that it must reinforce whatever traits are inherent to the members of each. I personally think that the point of the sorting is to sort students according to their natural inclinations, their temperaments and abilities. It does not then dictate what they decide to do with these. However decisions by members of any house to act in a way that seems to be outside the prevailing norm for that house must be extremely difficult. OTOH, perhaps it is only when we know our own nature fully, when it has been allowed to develop, that we are fully capable of deciding how to use our lives. This seems to be the path Snape followed. Debbie: >In any event, the way this is set up makes me think that JKR intended >Dumbledore's actions at the PS/SS Leaving Feast to rub the Slytherin's noses >with the fact that the Good Guys beat the Evil Guys even though everyone >knows the Evil Guys play dirty, because he knows the Slytherins are all Evil! >anyway so there's no point treating them with respect. I'm not convinced she >intended to show Dumbledore making a mistake, though I think he did no less >than stoop to the Slytherins' own game. Eloise: I sincerely hope that the reason she wrote the scene this way was purely for the sake of dramatic effect. I will go on record as saying that I agree with everything Marina has said about it. I firmly believe that it is wrong for Dumbledore to stoop to the Slytherin's own level like this. If the Slytherins are to be redeemable, they must be set an example of behaviour and tit for tat humiliation is not the way. Two wrongs never make a right and Dumbledore is supposed to be on the side of right. However he *is* allowed to make mistakes and I think this was a big one, just like his handling of the Prank. As I have pointed out, one of the advantage of the view that sees the dualism in HP not so much as a good/ evil conflict, but a conflict of world views, one of which recognises such moral values (the Light side), and one which does not ( the Dark side) is that it allows for grey actions such as this on the part of people who are supposed to be on the side of right. On a more frivolous note, of course, Dumbledore may have felt it prudent to do things this way, knowing quite well that is he awarded the points earlier, Snape would find some method to bump up his own house's scores! :-) (Just kidding, Judy) And if it wasn't all part of a pre-arranged plot to aid Snape's cover (and I agree with Judy that seems a bit unlikely), but was simply an error of judgement, I hope that when he realised what he had done, he sat Snape down with a drink and apologised. Humiliating your right hand man in public is not a good thing. OTOH, if he did it deliberately, but without Snape's collusion, because he trusted him enough to know that the move would not backfire, then it was exploitative and cruel. Not how decent people treat those they trust. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Thu May 2 11:53:01 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 07:53:01 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dissin' the Slyths (PS to Fourth Man, Good & Evil...etc) Message-ID: <24.24cd9eaf.2a02829d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38401 Sorry this is short, I only just thought of it. I know this is only fiction: Dicentra: >I'll concede this point: if Hogwarts were operating in the Real World, >you could certainly argue that Dumbledore's little drama was in poor. >taste at best, a tactical error at worst. >But as part of the Potterverse? It's only a mistake if it was written >that way. What I actually think is worse, is that it is not just Dumbledore giving this message to his students, but JKR giving the same message to her young readers, many of whom will not indulge in the kind of analysis that we are doing. Eloise (who isn't really such a moral prig as she sounds, honest.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From plumeski at yahoo.com Thu May 2 13:10:08 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 13:10:08 -0000 Subject: Vernon's backstory (was Harry's family) In-Reply-To: <6FB2240D.0B007173.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38402 dfrankiswork at n... wrote: > 1) VD is the Director of a firm that makes drills. But does he show any engineering knowledge? No, he does not. His various DIY attempts to keep Harry locked up are crude and pathetic. Furthermore, he is not Mr/Mrs/Miss Grunning, the firm's founder. In short, he is your typical second generation director, an *accountant* who has got the job on the flimsy excuse that cash flow is the life blood of any business. You've all seen it before. Just as most politicians turn out to be lawyers when you scratch the surface (Fudge is Way Evil, remember?), so most businessmen turn out to be accountants when you look behind the moustache. His role doesn't seem to be that of accountant, but of salesman. He deals with Mason's drills, for starters, and whenever he talks about Grunnings (which admittedly isn't often), it's always in terms of its products, not its finances. Besides, if he were an accountant, that's how Harry/the Narrator would refer to him - apart from anything else, eveyone knows that accountants are the epitome of boring people and the Narrator would definitely have used the term to describe him. Considering JKR's usual misdirection efforts, Ron's single line about Molly's accountant cousin would have already been mirrored by describing VD as an accountant, or at the very leat, something to tie him in with a finances. We've thus far had nothing of the sort. Also, although the Weasley family don't speak of Molly's accountant cousin, she would have made *something* of his name. If there were any family ties, the letter Molly writes to VD at the beginning of GoF would have made mention of it - she would not have been so formal and it's obvious that she's writing to a total stranger, not to a deliberately ignored relative. > 2) At Kings Cross, who does Vernon eye suspiciously? Molly Weasley. Why? Because he suspects her of being a wizard? No, because he is worried she will *recognise* him. He is her cousin. He knows who she is. Except that he asks Harry to tell him who she was when he gets that letter - VD is not a good enough actor to pretend not to know her. Besides, he has no reason to feign ignorance of who she is, as Harry wouldn't necessarily expect VD not to know - after all, from his POV it's obvious and he wouldn't realise that it isn't to VD. > And this brings us to the third piece of evidence. > > 3) What could cause young Vernon Dursley to become so embittered? It's clear. Rejection, that's what. *We*, through Harry's POV, see the kind, tolerant, welcoming Weasleys. But Vernon has suffered from their dark side. As so often happens with liberal-minded people, the Weasleys love Muggles from a distance, but have no intention of letting one anywhere near their family. When Mrs Dursley Sr (nee Weasley - well, no, but possibly nee the same as Molly) married a Muggle and gave birth to a Muggle son, their wrath knew no bounds. They cut her off without a knut. In turn, she brought young Vernon up to have nothing to do with magic in any form. She sent him to Smeltings where a regime of cold baths and knobbly sticks could guarantee to knock any magical thought out of his head. She groomed him for that most unmagical of all professions, accountancy. Weeelll.... Ron doesn't exactly say that the accountant is a Muggle, only that he's engaged in a Muggle profession - he's not even entirely sure. Also, with Arthur's love of Muggles, it would be just a little silly for him to ignore the Muggle in the family (or at least, his wife's). My own feelings are that either the "accountant" isn't actually a blood relative, or that he's simply given up on the wiazarding world (married to a Muggle?) and taken a Muggle job. > 4) What unites Vernon and Petunia? Fear and hatred of magic. They are kindred souls. Look how much they have in common. Both from mixed Muggle-wizard families where the wizard side is unfairly honoured and the Muggle side despised. Canon to date would indicate that Lily is entirely Muggle-born, and there's no immediat wizarding blood in the family line (or at least none that they know of). I don't think VD needs any kind of wizarding connections of his own to despise that world. He knows that his parents-in-law gave Lily preferential treatment, and thus Petunia hasn't had all the breaks she could have had, and then Harry turns up on their doorstep, disturbing their suburban lifestyle for ten years and more. We still have to find out what Dumbledore told him in the letter left with Harry - VD undoubtedly took umbrage at someone from the WW telling what he should and shouldn't do. > I think I have said more than enough to demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt that Vernon is the unmentionable Weasley accountant. Sorry, you haven't even started demontrating it to my satisfaction. Wanna have another go? :-) -- GulPlum aka Richard, UK From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu May 2 13:27:40 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 13:27:40 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38403 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > Judy observes: > > However, that doesn't make it OK for Dumbledore to stoop to the > Slytherin students' level; he is supposed to set an example for them. > As someone said, Dumbledore is Headmaster and therefore should be > impartial. > > And I say: > > According to whom? WE certainly think he should remain neutral in the > House rivalries, because that's our idea of fair and proper. That > might not be the case at all in WW. Remember, WW is messed up six > ways 'til Tuesday. A pie in the face from the Hogwarts Headmaster is > the least of their problems. The WW is messed up, yes. But Dumbledore is consistently presented as the guy who's trying to de-mess it. He's the eccentric reformer who rejects the standard wizarding prejudices, who doesn't automatically fall into the standard ways of thinking. So just because the WW thinks something is fair and proper doesn't mean that either we, or Dumbledore, have to go along with it. After all, WW considers it okay to discriminate against werewolves and half-giants, to employ Dementors as prison guards, and to punish house elves by making them iron their hands. We don't see Dumbledore going along with any of that, do we? > The point I'm making is this: what Dumbledore did is a bad idea ONLY > if it affected the Slyths the way y'all imagine it must have. Not necessarily. If a person does something ill-advised but, fortunately, no ill consequences follow, it doesn't make the action less ill-advised, it just makes the person lucky. > And it > affected them that way only if JKR wrote them to react that way. In > the context of Book 1 alone, there is no strategic mistake because > there are no DEs, no resurrected Voldemort, no path of darkness for > the Slyths to follow except one of their own making. Sure there's a Voldemort, Harry just got done fighting him. Yeah, he hadn't come back in a body yet, but Dumbledore knew there was a good chance of it happening eventually. It's not like he was caught totally by surprise at the end of GoF -- he had contingency plans in place and everything. > Maybe JKR didn't > have her chops down yet in Book 1, so Dumbledore's "tactical error" is > actually hers. On the other hand, I would need to see evidence that > the Slyths and Snape took it any harder than Neville did when he ate > the canary creams. Do we hear them mutter about how they hate > Dumbledore and his kind because of how they're being treated at > Hogwarts? Given the perspective of the books, we wouldn't hear it if it did happen. The Slytherins could be holding daily bitch-fests on the subject in their common room, and unless Harry finds an occasion to lurk behind the arras, we'll never know about it. We do know that the Slytherins don't like Dumbledore, and none of them shed any tears when he was temporarily removed in CoS. > Has Snape put Dumbledore's little trick in the same > category as Sirius's Prank? He wouldn't, since Dumbledore's action did not come close to resulting in his messy death. But given what we learned of Snape's relationship with Dumbledore in the later books, I feel fairly safe in assuming that Snape *was* affected by what Dumbledore did. He just put on a good face about it in public. > I'll concede this point: if Hogwarts were operating in the Real World, > you could certainly argue that Dumbledore's little drama was in poor > taste at best, a tactical error at worst. > > But as part of the Potterverse? It's only a mistake if it was written > that way. Perhaps it all comes down to a difference in reading philosophies, then. I believe that a work of fiction can have implications and meanings that the writer didn't intend, and that the unintended interpretations can be as valid as the intended ones. (Not always, but they can be.) I'm fairly sure JKR didn't intend to present Dumbledore's actions as anything more than an effective dramatic moment to highlight the end of the book. And if the storiy had ended with that one book, I might not have thought twice about it. But three books later, I can't help but view it in the context of the larger, darker, more morally complex story that she's currently telling. I also can't just discard my knowledge of the real world as irrelevant to my reading of the books. Fantasy and science fiction writers do sometimes deliberately construct totally alien societies where nothing that we know applies, and readers must put aside all their human preconceptions in order to immerse themselves in the story. But I don't think JKR intended that any more than she intended for us to condemn Dumbledore. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu May 2 13:38:43 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 13:38:43 -0000 Subject: Fourth Man canon/Weasleys Acronym In-Reply-To: <61.1f206ee3.2a027845@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38404 Eloise wrote: > I've just skimmed throught the graveyard scene again. I think one of > the issues that may have clouded things is the question of exactly > how many gaps there are. She doesn't really say. > When she describes the circle, she just says that there are gaps in > it. Voldemort then goes on specifically to remark on the two-person > Lestrage gap and the six- person one, (the three dead and the > deserter, the coward and the faithful servant). This, she tells us is > the *biggest* gap. Now, assuming that this isn't an example of sloppy > grammar (which I suppose we can't exclude), this implies that there > are more than two gaps in the circle and that implicitly Voldemort > has passed at least one other empty DE space without comment. I know nothing of the fourth man thory (and truth is, I don't want to know, it's far too complex and un-canon-like for my tastes), but if you're looking for canon, whatever the reason, I'll be happy to comply. It's not sloppy grammar, since it's mentioned twice. The second, you've already mentioned. The first is when, after kissing the tunic, they get up and form a circle, leaving *spaces* (note the plural) in the circle. Of course, two is plural, but I don't think that if there were only two spaces JKR would have used the formula "spaces." Again, the fact that later on she says that the 6-person gap is "the biggest", gives me the feeling that it's NOT "the biggest *of the two*", but the biggest of several. At any rate, it looks like there are several people missing and several death-eaters who are not introduced "He continued his course. He passed before some Deat Eaters without saying anything, but he sttoped before others and spoke to them" (as always, liberal translation from my own language). On another note completely, I remember that quite some time back it was asked if Mrs. Malfoy was a DE. I don't know if this was brought up, but we can see in this scene that married couples are standing besides one another, and Lucius is alone: he stands with wormtail at one side and the Lestranges in the other. This would indicate that Mrs. Malfoy is not a DE (the question that remains is whether she knows her husband IS a DE). > ******************************** > > Weasleys........ > > I am delighted to find that Debbie has also found evidence for the > weasel as an animal of great symbolic significance and come to the > same conclusion as I have that the name indicate that they have an > important part to play in the battle ahead. > > Acronym, anyone? > > ************************************ > > Eloise Hooooowl! Just when the Grey Wolf thought he had complied with the neverending petitions of acronyms from down south, and could rest his tired legs in the cold plains of the North, a new petition floats in the air, requesting anyone's assistance. Mildly offended because whomever asked did not do so properly - TAGWATCH exists to be consulted, not for petitions to be wildly thrown into the air - the noble sense of duty quickly grips his heart and -once again - sets forth in a dangerous path to find Eloise and surrender yet another acronym. Which means: Here you've got a brand new theory-based acronym. By attacking the Weasleys, our favourite EvilOverlord doesn't realise that V.O.L.D.E.M.O.R.T. W.A.K.E.S. A. W.I.L.D. A.N.I.M.A.L. (Voldemort Observes Laying-Dormant Enemy: Most Often Related To Weasleys's Animal Kindred Embodied Spirit, A Weasel's Inevitable Last Destiny: Although Named "Insignificant", Makes Adversary Loose). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, member of TAGWATCH, although still trying to work out how the devil the MAGIC machine works, while defending RICK'S THE BOSS, HARD SHIPWRECK and ENSLAVEMENT. From igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk Thu May 2 14:03:47 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk (Olwyn) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 15:03:47 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Vernon's backstory (was Harry's family) References: Message-ID: <001801c1f1e2$312fbe80$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 38405 Maybe Vernons whole problem with the wizarding World is another love story. :) He fell in love with Lily, dated her sister to try to get to her, Lily met James at Hogwarts, got married, Vernon gets depressed, ends up marrying Petunia and becomes completely embittered cause the wizarding world smashed up his deams of having Lily. :) Then again, maybe not. :) Olly [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu May 2 16:34:32 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 16:34:32 -0000 Subject: Fourth Man and Jokes and Law In-Reply-To: <61.1f206ee3.2a027845@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38406 Eloise wrote: > Yeah. Dump poor Avery, then it all works. But wasn't the whole thing about > the Fourth Man Kayak/ Hovercraft, whatever, the identification of the Fourth > man with Avery? Was I missing the point? No, you didn't miss the point. I thought the brilliance of the Fourth Man Theory is that it identifies Avery as the Fourth Man in the Pensieve. If you break that link, you have gutted Fourth Man. You are back to the Dark and Primitive Pre-Fourth Man Era, in which no one even *tried* to figure out whether the Fourth Man in the Pensieve scene would be important. In fact, most everyone assumed he was a throw-away character, because he didn't even have a name. Fourth Man changed all of that. If I understand things correctly, that is. So Avery is an integral part of the Fourth Man Hovercraft. I only try to toss him overboard because . . . well, because he's kind of a wimp and he lets me. I have to amuse myself somehow, don't I? ;-) But with people deserting Fourth Man in *droves* (and I think we already established that two deserters is a drove), maybe we'll have to downsize to the little two-man kayak and give the big, expansive Hovercraft to some other theory. ;-) But then again, I'm no Fourth Man Expert. I'm a Fourth Man Apprentice. I'm just here to learn. > Cindy:> > >"Avery -- from what I've heard he wormed his way out of trouble >>by > >saying he'd been acting under the Imperius Curse -- he's still at > >large Eloise: > But you see, it was that 'still' that bothered me. To me that >makes it sound like he never did go to Azkaban, although I suppose >it *could* mean he's not been re-arrested. Yes, I see your point there. But, setting aside issues with Sirius not being all that precise with his language here, the "still" could just mean that Avery's release wasn't a full pardon, but was some sort of parole thing. In other words, he stays at large so long as he behaves. Going on a Voldemort hunt would be just the sort of thing Avery's parole officer would find rather upsetting. I mean, the phrase "still at large" normally means that a criminal is out there and on the run. I somehow get the sense that Avery isn't in hiding or anything. I mean, if he wormed his way out of trouble, why would he be hiding? That's why I think Sirius is just being imprecise. Judy wrote: >In fact, I've been dying for ages to ask whether > people *really* believe that the Fourth Man was Avery, or if the >whole "Fourth Man is Avery" thing is just a joke. Debbie responded: >That's twice in one day I've been accused of taking a joke >seriously [slinking under my chair in embarrassment]. OK, now. It's time we cleared up this "joke" business. I can only offer up my own personal opinion here, but here it is. My view of some of the more wild theories is that the relevant question is whether they enjoy support in canon. More support in canon makes them better theories. Blatant inconsistencies with canon make them . . . um, . . . well, they shrivel up like the Arabella/Sirius SHIP, and their proponents start pretending they don't remember ever proposing such a thing. But what is the point of the theories, anyway? Am I always trying to predict precisely what JKR is planning to write in the next three books? Am I trying to guess what is in her little notebook that will one day be released as an encyclopedia (hopefully)? Sometimes yes, and sometimes no. I really don't think JKR is going to hook up Mad Eye Moody and Hermione in the next three books. Nah, not going to happen. But is there canon support for the idea? Sure. So it is fun to contemplate and discuss? Sure. But the Mad- Eye/Hermione SHIP is so totally *out there* that it is just a joke. I don't think anyone was ever confused about that. What about the idea that Bagman is an Evil DE after all? Well, that happens to be a wild and speculative theory that I think is very likely to be what JKR intended and is something likely to happen in the next three books. (If it doesn't happen, I will see it as a missed opportunity to work a great plot twist on most readers). So Bagman Is Ever So Evil is not something I intended to be a joke like Hermione/Mad Eye. And what about the vast middle? Fourth Man, Ambush theories, ToadKeeper, Trapezoid? They aren't jokes, in my mind, anyway. And that is because I'm not always trying to answer the question of what JKR will do. Sometimes I'm just trying to answer the question, "Of the many mysteries in canon, which solutions to those mysteries will canon support?" So in that sense, I'm dead serious about these theories in the middle. I think some work better than others, but I think they are all valid theories to discuss which are designed to explain canon mysteries. Finally, there are theories that in my mind address how far JKR could go and what she could get away with. In other words, based on the limitations of canon in the first 4 books, what scenarios in the next three books are possible and what scenarios are completely impossible and needn't be considered at all? Moody Is Ever So Evil is one such theory. The idea there is that it would be nearly impossible for JKR to devise any plot in OoP that rests on Moody's status as an Evil DE in the first 4 books. At first glance, the whole plot of GoF requires Moody to be firmly on Dumbledore's team, because Voldemort's plot to kidnap Moody makes no sense if Moody is a DE. Unless . . . unless one starts looking for evidence in canon that JKR could use to make Moody evil in OoP and *not* destroy GoF. Is there sufficient evidence for Moody Is Ever So Evil? Sure, I think so. So no, that's not a joke either. So, for the most part, I'm not joking, and I'm not crazy, although the last bit is open to debate, perhaps. ;-) Along those lines, David wrote: >Cindy: > I have never been able to make sense of that scene. I actually >find it rather FLINT-y. David: >Cindy, I thought you were just joking, but it seems to have become >a serious subject of discussion. I can well believe that the >Pensieve trials are directly based on material JKR saw when she >worked for Amnesty International. Does the apparent lack of due >process really make these scenes unconvincing? Oh, I *never* joke about The Law! ;-) Seriously, the scenes strike me as FLINT-y because they seem designed to read as though Harry is seeing the entire trial/sentencing/plea bargain from beginning to end: In Karkaroff's Pensieve scene, Harry pops into the room and takes in his surroundings. The door opens, and Karkaroff enters. Stuff happens. Then at the end, Crouch Sr. says "Very well, Karkaroff . . . you have been of assistance. I shall review your case. You will be returned to Azkaban in the meantime." This suggests that the plea bargain is over. In Bagman's scene, we see the same thing. Bagman enters, stuff happens, and the scene ends, leaving me with the impression that the reader has witnesses the entire acquittal (although certainly not Bagman's entire trial). In the Crouch Jr. scene, again the defendants are brought in, stuff happens, and then the defendants are dragged out. We see the entire sentencing from beginning to end. So we don't have a situation in which we are only seeing snippets of the legal proceedings. These 9 pages contain the complete legal proceedings (the plea bargain, the return of verdict, and the sentencing). Even then, most of the 9 pages consist of things that aren't the proceedings themselves (Moody muttering, Harry's observations). The reason, then, that all of this strikes me as FLINT-y is that there is so much missing or wrong. Defendants don't have lawyers (or, at least, lawyers with dialogue). We have the role of judge and prosecutor roled into one. We have Bagman interacting with a biased member of the jury. We have the audience murmuring and jeering. We have the defendant's mother sitting next to the judge. We have no recusal of the defendant's father (and no, bellowing "You are no son of mine!" doesn't count). Now, I assume that there are legal systems in the world where this sort of kangaroo court happens. Unless JKR really intends to send a message that wizarding justice is a farce, I would have expected her to change a few things to make these scenes more realistic and believable. Simply making it clear that these bits are only small pieces of larger and more equitable proceedings would have gone a long way to put me at ease. JKR isn't alone in glossing legal details in her books, of course. I have many eye-roll moments in pretty much any book or movie dealing with law. Obviously, authors and filmmakers don't bother to improve the accuracy of their legal scenes because real life legal proceedings are Terribly Boring, so I can hardly blame them. So, yes, the legal scenes in GoF are rather FLINT-y to me. Or maybe it is more precise to say that they are frustratingly imprecise. Cindy From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu May 2 17:18:57 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 17:18:57 -0000 Subject: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) (Was:: Still Life) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38407 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > This is one of a series of follow-ups to "Still Life with Memory > Charm" (message #36772). I offer my sincere apologies for the long > delay: other matters intervened there for a while, and then, by the > time that I got back to this, so many people said such interesting > things that it took me quite some time just to process them all! > First, let me applaud Elkins for having the courage to revive an old thread for no other reason than that it was not finished. I don't like it when people feel that just because a post got a raft of responses within a few hours, and then no more, they are no longer free to post on the topic. (I see HPFGU not as a moving picture in which only the moment is of importance, but an accumulation of understanding.) I wanted to respond to the Still Life post at the time, but did not have time, and sadly, forgot all about it since. Well, here it is. If I have understood Elkins' post correctly, she is saying two things: That the burial of the past is a major theme, that its uncovering can be (is always?) of great significance, and that uncovering is not always a good thing. The example of Voldemort's rebirthing is given as a negative uncovering. That Neville is a kind of anti-Harry, in the sense that he renounces an overt legacy that is very similar to the covert legacy that Harry discovers and embraces. She expresses the fear that JKR will show such renunciation to be misconceived, and that Neville will be given authorial approval for taking up his auror's mantle; Elkins would rather that a positive place be given for renouncing the kick-ass approach to dealing with evil. OK, my take on these things. My understanding is that the burial ('denial' in all its connotations) and uncovering of the past is central to the whole series. I have pointed out before that each of the books, as well as tellign the story of a successive year of Harry's life, also uncovers a story about a specific period in the past. PS outlines the attack on Harry as a baby; COS reveals the beginnings of Voldemort; POA reveals Harry's father's school years; GOF reveals the immediate aftermath of the Voldemort years. I fully expect this pattern to continue. However, I had seen this almost entirely in a positive light. It is *good* that the past be uncovered and the truth be known. Even if it is initially unpleasant (even misleading), it is ultimately good. Thus Riddle's framing of Hagrid is a precursor to Aragog's further revelation and Riddle's own eventual admission. It is actually a good thing that Riddle (who describes himself as a memory) is allowed out of the diary: only thus can he be exorcised. In a similar vein, it is my understanding of the developing story that Voldemort's rebirth is a necessary precursor to his eventual exorcism. Not that he must be mortal to die - rather, the conditions that allow him to flourish are still present, and the whole plant must be dug up, not just this year's growth snipped off. Another analogy would be that to get at the buried treasure you have to dig up the earth too. In relation to Neville, I would see it as a positive development for his past to be exposed (I think I mean to himself, but we don't know exactly what is concealed from whom; at any rate I don't mean broadcast in the Daily Prophet.). This would not necessarily mean that he then accepts its legacy uncritically or in total, rather, only then can he really make a free choice. At the moment Neville's behaviour is not free IMO in many regards. He may be free to resist the roles that his friends try to thrust on him (and in fact Dumbledore commends this in the controversial 10 point award), but he is not free, for example, to explain his point of view. I don't think it necessarily beyond JKR's authorial vision to put forward a view of humanity that is outside the scope of the four houses - indeed I think there is a case for saying that it exists in the House-elves, Giants, and other Beings. On one side, the Centaurs and Merpeople, like Elkins' Neville, have rejected the Wizarding conception of humanity (see FB); on the other, Dumbledore asserts the necessity for Muggles to be seen as an integral element. What I think *is* outside her vision is the idea that some sleeping dogs really are better let lying. It is interesting that the 'warrior culture' is one of the things that is common to the traditional school story (e.g. Kipling's Stalky & Co) and to fantasy literature (or Sword and Sorcery as I used to know it). To some extent it is just traditional culture, the stuff of all the stories we are brought up on. (If I get time, I will do an OT digression on how UK education policy is driven by the public's need for competition for its own sake.) David From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu May 2 17:39:03 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 10:39:03 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron's prejudices (Was: prejudice in the WW (was: If I had to choose...) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94143267588.20020502103903@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38408 Sunday, April 28, 2002, 9:10:30 PM, serenadust wrote: s> How is this an example of Ron's weakness? In GoF it states very s> clearly that "*not one* of them seemed to be able to fight off the s> curse" in the DADA class. That would, of course, include Hermione. s> Do you believe that she's also weak? I think the problem stems from Crouch-as-Moody's statement that "It takes strength of character to fight the IC." -- This has led to the faulty conclusion among some: People who can fight the IC are strong in character. Ron cannot fight the IC ---- Therefore Ron is not strong in character. Which is logically equivalent to: All whales are animals. My dog is not a whale. ---- Therefore my dog is not an animal. I think a lot of other factors come into the ability to fight the IC, including, probably, practice. After all, a 98-pound weakling can't effectively fight the local bully until he's built up some strength. My guess is that the only reason Harry can fight the IC so immediately is all that power he got from Voldemort. s> In fact, Barty Crouch, Sr. is s> described by Sirius as follows: "He's a great wizard, Barty Crouch, s> powerfully magical..." Yet, it takes him many months to throw off s> the curse. And he never does fully -- he keep switching in and out of it. s> Unlike Harry who yearns for the very plain Cho Chang? Sorry to s> say, but this is entirely typical of 14 year old boys (and even s> grown men, in many cases). Don't forget also that Fleur has that "Veela Aura" that draws all heterosexual males toward her, whether they like it or not. And you're right about the "Typical 14 year old" -- Don't get me started on the ravishing but worthless broads I fell for in my youth. Glad to see the CRAB brigade out in full force! :) -- Dave From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu May 2 18:03:44 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 18:03:44 -0000 Subject: Pensieve revisited (was Fourth Man and Jokes and Law) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38409 I asked: > >I can well believe that the > >Pensieve trials are directly based on material JKR saw when she > >worked for Amnesty International. Does the apparent lack of due > >process really make these scenes unconvincing? and Cindy kindly responded: > > Seriously, the scenes strike me as FLINT-y because they seem > designed to read as though Harry is seeing the entire > trial/sentencing/plea bargain from beginning to end: > > > So we don't have a situation in which we are only seeing snippets of > the legal proceedings. These 9 pages contain the complete legal > proceedings (the plea bargain, the return of verdict, and the > sentencing). Even then, most of the 9 pages consist of things that > aren't the proceedings themselves (Moody muttering, Harry's > observations). All the above, including the snipped bits, would be my impression too. Would a plea bargain normally count (in the Anglo-saxon Muggle world) as a legal proceeding? I think I'm saying I don't give them names, to me they are just Bits of Stuff That Happen. They have no context in the sense of a putative legal system. > > Now, I assume that there are legal systems in the world where this > sort of kangaroo court happens. Unless JKR really intends to send a > message that wizarding justice is a farce, I would have expected her > to change a few things to make these scenes more realistic and > believable. Ah, now I think that *is* exactly the message JKR intends to send. When I first read GOF I found these scenes more disturbing than any other part of the book - more so than Pettigrew cutting off his hand, or Cedric being killed. The only rival in my evaluation is Winky's slide into degradation, and only the Dementors have a similar impact on me in the rest of the series. I think that's because they are either drawn from life, or are believable in a way that Voldemort or the Dursleys are not. However, I have realised that there is a possibly important distinction. Kangaroo courts and unfair trials usually have in common that they are, at some level, knowingly unfair - they are for show, in order to make the historical record reflect the authorities' preferred view of events. I suspect that the Pensieve scenes show a Wizarding World which is trying to be fair, and more or less thinks that it is fair. Perhaps these are not show trials but they are more like children in the playground inventing frontier justice as they go along? Or perhaps they are more like the kind of justice that goes on around our dinner table - sometimes one of us parents will intervene with the other in defence of one of our children, sometimes we unite in condemnation, sometimes they get off, like Bagman, on charm alone. > So, yes, the legal scenes in GoF are rather FLINT-y to me. Or maybe > it is more precise to say that they are frustratingly imprecise. They *are* very imprecise - it is possible that they are filtered for Harry (and us) through Dumbledore's rather un-forensic mind. Dumbledore remembers only the things he feels are relevant - the general sense of injustice, the emotional appeals, Karkaroff's names - though to my mind this slightly defeats the purpose of the Pensieve which in part should be to keep memories which would otherwise be rejected. Somebody else on this list with legal training mentioned that the Pensieve scenes are unconvincing: I am intrigued by this because I had rather assumed a list consensus that they merely reflect the parlous state of Wizarding Justice. Thoughts, lawyers? David From igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk Thu May 2 17:58:21 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk (Olwyn) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 18:58:21 +0100 Subject: Flamel was a wizard Message-ID: <000801c1f202$f31858c0$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 38410 Somewhere in my regularly malfunctioning brain theres a memory of a discussion/specualtion regarding whether Flamel was a Wizard or a Muggle. It appears that he was a wizard. The DVD release of the celluloid that shall not be named, has in the extras (I ordered mine today) "never before seen footage featuring Nicholas Flamel's Wizard Card..." Olly Who just realised this should probably have gone on one of the other mailers. Sorry [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Thu May 2 19:12:41 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 12:12:41 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron's prejudices/hormones In-Reply-To: <94143267588.20020502103903@mindspring.com> References: <94143267588.20020502103903@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <90250792984.20020502121241@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38411 Hi, Thursday, May 02, 2002, 10:39:03 AM, Dave wrote: > Don't forget also that Fleur has that "Veela Aura" that draws all > heterosexual males toward her, whether they like it or not. And > you're right about the "Typical 14 year old" -- Don't get me started > on the ravishing but worthless broads I fell for in my youth. And it doesn't really stop after the teenage years, either . Most men I know, my husband included, still turn their heads and stare at beautiful young things, veela or not ;) They may not "fall" for them anymore, but if HRH were still friends in their later years, I'm sure Hermione would have many occasions to shake her head at them and say : Honestly! And I hope the series will end with all three of them alive and still friends. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From abigailnus at yahoo.com Thu May 2 19:53:34 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 19:53:34 -0000 Subject: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) (Was:: Still Life) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38412 Damn, Elkins, we do not deserve you. I can't really believe I'm going to try and follow this up. Here goes. Elkins wrote: > Neville, on the other hand, I tend to read as a representation > of the opposing archetype: the prince renunciate, the abdicator or > the apostate. Neville has always known that he is (or that he is > "supposed to be") a wizard. He has always known that his family > is old and proud and well-respected, that they are "pureblood." > He has always known that his father was a kind of a war hero, albeit > a martyred one. And he has always been aware -- far too well > aware, I'd say -- of the role that he is expected to play within > his society. > > And he's running away from it just as fast as he can. His > story, the coming of age story that accompanies Neville's type, > is one of renunciation, rather than of acceptance, of "coming > into ones own" by finding the strength to *reject* the legacy > and to forge instead a new destiny of ones own choosing. Dave already mentioned this, but I feel bound to say that I think you're confusing rejecting the past with hiding from it. Whether or not his memory has been modified, Neville's memory issues, his inability to face up with his legacy as you call it, is not a choice, it is the result of fear. He hasn't made any choice, either to embrace the role his family has set out for him or to reject it, because in order to do so he would first have to be aware that such a choice exists. In this context Neville represents neither memory nor forgetfullness (that is, the choice to forget something, as you say the wizarding community has collectively chosen to do) but a complete unawareness that the past even exists. In much the same way that children are unable to conceive of a world that existed before their birth. I think Dumbledore says it best, actually, at the end of GoF. I'm without my copy, but his words are to the effect that he must hear what Harry has to tell him about Voldemort's resurrection, and when Sirius objects, claiming that Harry has been through enough, Dumbledore tells him that by burying Harry's memories he will be hurting him more. Only by examining the past and accepting it can Harry be healed. I see this scene as emblematic of one of the main themes that tie into the whole memory /history thing - these kids aren't just coming into their own, they are coming of age. Growing up. Dumbledore tells Harry that if he thought he could help him by putting him into a dreamless sleep, he would do so, but he has already recognized that this solution befits a child, and Harry is no longer that. Sirius, who hasn't grasped this yet, tries to protect the child, whereas Dumbledore realizes he is dealing with the young man, and acts accordingly. Harry and his peers are entering a difficult age, one in which they have to actively choose to put away childish things - including Neville's reluctance to face his own past. Case in point: The House > Cup is nothing but a trophy. It confers no actual benefit to the > members of the House which possesses it. It is a pure expression of > winning for the sake of winning. And yet the entire student body > would seem to be terribly invested in its attainment. They are > willing to allow their desire for this empty symbol to motivate their > actions to a degree that at times seems quite ludicrous. > > (Are *none* of these otherwise seemingly bright students capable of > realizing that the Cup is nothing but a chimera? I always find myself > wondering, not without a certain degree of irritation. Can't *any* > of them see through that particular ploy? Or is it just that we never > meet any of those students, because they were all sorted into > Ravenclaw?) OK, see, I'm convinced that at some point, maybe more than once, Harry has expressed the opinion that ultimately, the House Cup and the winning and losing of points are meaningless, but as hard as I try the best I can come with is pretty vague. At the end of PS, Harry blows up at Ron and Hermione, who are afraid that going after Quirrel will make them lose more points for Gryffindor. True, Harry doesn't exactly say that this is more important than points (or does he? I don't remember) but the core of that attitude is there (but even this watered down version should count for a lot as it's in the very first book and Harry is only 11.) I expect that, as the kids start growing up, as the magnitude of what's happening (or will be happening) around them becomes clear, the inter house competitions will seem less and less important - downright silly, even. > People who believe that Neville has a memory charm often speculate > that this charm will eventually be removed, and that when it does, > Neville will "come into his own." He will be able to access > previously-suppressed reservoirs of magical power; he will gain self- > confidence; he will become SUPER-Neville. He will go out and kick DE > butt. He will bring honor to the family name; he will exhibit Proper > Pure-blooded Wizarding Pride. He will become at last a True Warrior- > Spirited Gryffindor. > > I lie awake sometimes at night, fearing that something like this > might indeed be the author's intent. Because if it is, then I won't > view it as a triumph for the forces of Good at all. I will view it > as a horrible horrible tragedy. But see, I don't see Neville coming into his own and Neville rejecting the expectations of his family to be mutually exclusive. If we accept that Neville hasn't yet made a concious choice either way, and that in order to make that choice he has to first get over his memory block, whatever is causing it, then for him to be the prince renunciate he *must* stop forgetting. He has to look back at whatever it is he doen't want to see and actively say "No, I don't want to do that." And wasn't it you, Elkins, who said that Neville's problems with magic have nothing to do with power and everything to do with control? Coming into his own might mean, in that context, taking control not only of the direction his life is taking but of his own abilities, and not necessarily choosing to use them to prod DE buttock. And I think it's a foregone conclusion that, whatever makes Neville so forgetfull, we will eventually see a reversal in his situation. There has to be a payoff. I just don't equate becoming powerful with using that power - just knowing that you could use it is enough. This is the kind of vibe that people get from Lupin. In an entire book he never raises his voice, never loses his temper except once at the shrieking shack and even then he's trying to be reasonable by pointing out to Snape that he is letting a schoolboy grudge decide a man's fate. And yet, he's a werewolf, he's a highly qualified DADA teacher, and he just exudes power. Wouldn't that be a neat twist? In our heart of hearts we're all wondering if Neville isn't following in Peter's footsteps - JKR makes the allusion herself - wouldn't it be great if he turned out to be the new Lupin? And finally, rejecting your society's warrior ethos and choosing to walk your own path are all well and good in times of peace, but do any of us really want Neville to be unable or unwilling, when the time comes, to protect himself and his friends? Or for that matter, is it desirable that he not take any part in the battle that is surely coming? That he never attack his enemy? I'm not talking about revenge here, about hunting down Mrs. Lestrange and going "Hello. My name is Neville Longbottom. You Crucio'd my parents. Prepare to die." but about actively trying to free the world from tyranny and ending the dark lord's rule. These are things worth fighting for, a warrior ethos that I for one can get behind. There's a difference between taking revenge and fighting your enemy, and I think that both Neville and Harry would do well to find their place somewhere between the two. > > Or, as Gulplum quite succinctly put it: > > > The ability to forget is as important to the health of the human > > psyche as the ability to remember. > > Yes. > That sounds like something we read in synagogue every year on Yom Kippur. It's by Martin Buber, the German philosopher and one of the fathers of Reform Judaism. What he says basically is that the two greatest powers granted to the human race are the ability to remember and the ability to forget. Abigail From huntleyl at mssm.org Thu May 2 20:28:32 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 16:28:32 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) (Was:: Still Life) References: Message-ID: <003c01c1f217$ed94b500$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 38413 Elkins said: > People who believe that Neville has a memory charm often speculate > that this charm will eventually be removed, and that when it does, > Neville will "come into his own." He will be able to access > previously-suppressed reservoirs of magical power; he will gain self- > confidence; he will become SUPER-Neville. He will go out and kick DE > butt. He will bring honor to the family name; he will exhibit Proper > Pure-blooded Wizarding Pride. He will become at last a True Warrior- > Spirited Gryffindor. > > I lie awake sometimes at night, fearing that something like this > might indeed be the author's intent. Because if it is, then I won't > view it as a triumph for the forces of Good at all. I will view it > as a horrible horrible tragedy. Oh, me too. This prospect just fills me with sheer dread. DREAD, I tell you. And not just the part about being SUPER-Neville...but also..I think Neville's forgetfulness, his bumbling nature - they are part of him. Why do we feel the need to change everyone in this series into super-heroes? I *like* him as insecure and good-natured. It's who Neville *is*. If he were to suddenly gain power and confidence, it'd be OOC. Even in RL, people just don't change like that from gaining previously unpossessed talents. It takes a long time (perhaps never) to build confidence where previously there was none -- even if the *talent* is available. Abigail: >And I think it's a foregone conclusion that, whatever makes Neville so >forgetful, we will eventually see a reversal in his situation. Why? Why can't it just be part of him? I mean, I'm not saying it *won't* happen, just that I don't see why it *has* to happen... Some people are just naturally forgetful. What if it's just a facet of Neville's personality?? It's like all of us around here sitting around waiting for Hermione to realize she really *isn't* the intellectual type and start skipping classes...honestly, I wouldn't hold your breath. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From huntleyl at mssm.org Thu May 2 20:41:36 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 16:41:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Memory Charms (WAS: Neville: Memory, etc.) References: Message-ID: <004101c1f219$c0e19d00$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 38414 Abigail: >That sounds like something we read in synagogue every year on Yom Kippur. >It's by Martin Buber, the German philosopher and one of the fathers of >Reform Judaism. What he says basically is that the two greatest powers >granted to the human race are the ability to remember and the ability to forget. This statement touches on something that's been bothering me about Wizarding World ethics for quite some time now. How DARE they use Memory Charms? Seriously, I can think of nothing more evil -- they ought to be Unforgivable. I mean, my memories -- they're all I *have*. They're the only thing that make me *me*, you know? How could anyone try to take even a few of them from me? It's like rape. Worse. This also bothered me in the Dark Is Rising series...at the end when the minds of all the humans are wiped. Only one is even given the *choice* to remember. How could the forces of "Light" *do* something to someone -- especially against their will? Especially in DIR, the choice to part with the memories of the battle between Light and Dark was looked upon as noble, responsible, and mature. But how could that be? Honestly, how could that ever be made right? In my experience, it is never good to even *try* to forget. Every bad thing I've ever tried to push into the back of my mind has always kept coming back until I *dealt* with it. Even if it seems like I've succeeded in pretending something never happened -- years later it will surface again, just as terrible as before. And again, what else do any of us have, except memories? What else is there that defines you in your mind? To take something like that from someone is, IMO, the most amoral thing possible. I realize that JKR had to have a plausible explanation for why us Muggles never noticed the Wizards living in our midst...but still. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 2 20:46:31 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 20:46:31 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38415 I said the public humiliation was "poetic justice" because of > how the Slytherins came to be 150 points ahead of Gryffindor in the first place...it was because of Draco Malfoy 's underhanded plot to catch them with Norbert. Judy accused me of being corrupted by the celluloid thingy: >>>I disagree. That is not how it happened in the book. In the book (unlike the movie), Draco fails to get Harry and Hermione in trouble; he is caught by McGonagall long before Filch catches Harry and Hermione. McGonagall takes 20 points from Slytherin because Draco was out of bed and trying to get Harry & Hermione in trouble, and then takes 150 points from Gryffindor because she *thought* Harry and Hermione were plotting to get Draco in trouble. In other words, McGonagall misjudged Harry and Hermione, and took an excessive number of points from Gryffindor. This is hardly Slytherin House's fault. Why should Slytherin be punished, and Gryffindor rewarded, for an injustice committed by the head of *Gryffindor*?<<<< I'll have you know I re-read the passage before I posted that. The way I saw it, Filch was lurking because Draco had tipped him off, and Draco was lurking because, in typical evil-overlord fashion, he just had to be in on the kill. Harry and Hermione were up to no good, they did get Neville in trouble, and they were punished, justly if not precisely. You could be right that Draco had nothing to do with it...but in that case Slytherin was gloating and swaggering over a victory that they had done nothing at all to earn even by Slytherin standards. I still say they needed to be taken down. But that's not why Dumbledore did it. Dumbledore rewards Gryffindor in front of the whole school because Harry, Hermione and Ron risked their lives for the sake of the whole school, Slytherins included. As for Neville, if there is one thing the Slytherins need to know, it's that it's okay to stand against your housemates. The lesson gets across: many of the Slytherins defy Dumbledore and refuse to toast Harry at the end of GoF, but not all. Marina: >>> But he could just as easily have announced the winning house before the feast and still given credit during the feast. A quick "congrats to Gryffindor, and let me explain why they won" speech would've done the job just fine without the handwaving and changing banner colors half-way through. <<<< ::scratches head:: Are you perchance thinking of That Which Shall Not Be Named? It wasn't half-way through, it was right at the start, before the food is served. There was a quick congrats to Slytherin and let me explain why they lost. There was no hand waving, it was a clap. Consider: if Gryffindor won fairly, as Snape acknowledges with that hand shake, then what Dumbledore gave Slytherin was a moment of recognition and an acknowledgement that they came closer to winning than the final point totals would indicate. The *only* reason the Slytherins have to feel humiliated is that they had been gloating. That's hardly Dumbledore's fault. Any sort of tactful behind the scenes maneuver to spare their feelings would only have come across as weakness. Do you really think the Slytherins would have said, "How nice of Dumbledore to be so considerate?" No way! They'd have said, "Ha! What is he hiding? He knows we should have won, and he's afraid to admit it." Marina again: >>Reaching the Slytherins is a difficult task. << Switching the banners is a show of force, and that is the way to reach Slytherins. Dumbledore doesn't attempt to wean them from their desire for power, or ban them from the school, because power in the Potterverse is not evil. It's morally neutral: the wands made from Fawkes' feathers can be used for good or ill. What puts the Slytherins in moral danger is that having a chosen a House that exalts power over virtue in particular, they may never realize that virtue itself is a source of power, or that love is the greatest power of all. The only chance Dumbledore has is to show them virtue can be a great deal more than its own reward. Heidi asked: >>>But that sort of flips right back to one of my initial questions in this thread: was Draco's reporting of Harry in PoA a good act, an evil act, or something else?<<< If Slytherins believe they can get power by doing good, they'll turn in their caches of poison, contribute to worthy causes and behave like responsible citizens. This is what Draco does in turning in Harry. Viewed in isolation, it's a good deed, but we don't know if it's an indicator of moral development because we don't know if Draco had any motive besides wanting to get Harry in trouble. Though Harry would have found Slytherin the road to perdition, I don't think we can assume that is so for every student. There must be those, like Snape, who discover virtue in seeking power. Suppose Snape had been a Ravenclaw; would he ever have acted against Voldemort, or would he just have held above the fray? Pippin From gwendolyngrace at yahoo.com Thu May 2 20:54:51 2002 From: gwendolyngrace at yahoo.com (gwendolyngrace) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 20:54:51 -0000 Subject: Impossible timetable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38416 Howdy! Nuria addressed the inconsistencies of the Hogwarts timetable. You're absolutely right, Nuri. I addressed this very question in a lot of detail here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/36762 And I didn't bother to upload it as a file, but in my private archives I have extensive documentation from my attempt to put together a master schedule. It just doesn't work very well--at least, it's *barely* possible for the teachers, if they don't have any free periods, excepting lunch, and if each class meets only once per week, but it's impossible if one factors in more than one period per class per week, and if one doesn't, the kids wind up being out of class more often than they are in it. Gwen From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu May 2 21:22:02 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 21:22:02 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38417 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Dumbledore rewards Gryffindor in front of the whole school > because Harry, Hermione and Ron risked their lives for the sake > of the whole school, Slytherins included. As for Neville, if there is > one thing the Slytherins need to know, it's that it's okay to stand > against your housemates. All of which could've been done without the bait-and-switch maneuver. > Marina: > >>> But he could just as easily have announced the winning > house before the feast and still given credit during the feast. A > quick "congrats to Gryffindor, and let me explain why they won" > speech would've done the job just fine without the handwaving > and changing banner colors half-way through. <<<< > > ::scratches head:: Are you perchance thinking of That Which > Shall Not Be Named? It wasn't half-way through, it was right at > the start, before the food is served. There was a quick congrats > to Slytherin and let me explain why they lost. There was no hand > waving, it was a clap. It's possible I'm conflating the book and movie details in my memory. I don't see how it's relevant, however. I think that the switch was wrong regardless of whether it happened at the beginning, middle, or end of the feast; and I think it was wrong regardless of whether Dumbledore did it by waving, clapping, or dancing the Macarena on top of the staff table. > Consider: if Gryffindor won fairly, as Snape acknowledges with > that hand shake, then what Dumbledore gave Slytherin was a > moment of recognition and an acknowledgement that they came > closer to winning than the final point totals would indicate. The > *only* reason the Slytherins have to feel humiliated is that they > had been gloating. That's hardly Dumbledore's fault. No, the Slytherins have reason to feel humiliated because they got publically jerked around by their Headmaster. "Congrats, guys, you won! Come into the hall and sit down, look at all the pretty green and silver banners, get ready to celebrate... Whoops, just kidding! You lose after all. Surprise!" Other houses don't get that sort of thing pulled on them when they lose. I don't see how the Slyths could interpret it as anything other than a slap in the face. > > Any sort of tactful behind the scenes maneuver to spare their > feelings would only have come across as weakness. Announcing the final standings before the feast and decorating the Hall in Gryffindor colors to begin with would not have been "tactful behind the scenes maneuvering" -- it would've been regular procedure. That's how it's done in all the other years. > Marina again: > >>Reaching the Slytherins is a difficult task. << > > Switching the banners is a show of force, and that is the way to > reach Slytherins. I don't understand. How is it a show of force? What power is Dumbledore demonstrating that would not have been demonstrated without the switch? Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From jmt59home at aol.com Thu May 2 22:41:55 2002 From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry) Date: Thu, 02 May 2002 22:41:55 -0000 Subject: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) (Was:: Still Life) In-Reply-To: <003c01c1f217$ed94b500$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38418 Thank goodness this topic been bought up again, I have for the past two weeks been getting very worried about Neville. It seems that my ideas change every couple of days and its now very un-nerving. I don't want Neville to become another Harry, one of my reason for liking him so much is that he is kind and compassionate. I don't want him to lose this. He could be powerful and great but learn to use his power to help others and defend those weaker then him, I see no reason to have him change personality and become a symbol of vengence. You need someone like Neville, to keep a grip on the value of life. I rather like the idea of "to err is human, to forgive is divine" for Neville. I think everyone agrees that Neville is repressing something which holds him back, we don't know very much to say what, was it just his parent he saw tortured? Is there something else there? It could be that Neville may blame himself in some way. It also strikes me, that Neville is very lonely. There isn't really anyone he can talk to, that he really trusts, this is shown that a) He has never mentioned his parents b) He is never seen with anyone for company. I think that this is why he can't face his past. Harry has Ron and Dumbledore and now Sirus, Neville has no one, the way he speaks about his Gran, implies that he can't really go to her and the idea of facing something as big as that alone, is enough to scare anyone into silence. I think that when he sees Snape that he does see a possible future self and it scares him. He is also very intimidated by his gran and his family, and is more concerned about what others want of him and so he doesn't know what he wants. This all adds to his confusion. I really want to see Neville happy, I don't want him to become the "Super Neville" although I would love to see him defend those he cares about, defend but not attack. Dogberry From draco382 at yahoo.com Fri May 3 00:32:46 2002 From: draco382 at yahoo.com (draco382) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 00:32:46 -0000 Subject: Choose your own Animagus? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38419 Hi all, I just have a general question about something I was confused about. Does it ever specify in in any of the books how certain individuals ended up with their respective animagus forms? Specifically, was it implied in PoA that James Potter and Sirius Black CHOSE to be a Stag and Dog? Or, does one end up with their animagus form by simply performing the spell and then waiting to see what happens? For some reason, I always assumed that each wizard/witch chose the animal they were most fond of turning into. For example, did Peter choose to be a rat because it was more inconspicuous? Or do wizards turn into animagus (as people are suggesting) according to their personalities/abilities/life situations etc... Sorry if this was already discussed.... :-) ~P From catlady at wicca.net Fri May 3 04:38:33 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 04:38:33 -0000 Subject: Rights and Wrongs / Ron / The Mirror of Memory / Animagi Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38420 Pippin wrote: > Although Dumbledore doubtless disapproves of the Dursleys, he > upholds their right to be Harry's guardians, and their right to > raise him as they see fit. (snip) > Much of the conflict in the story revolves around how universally > those rights should be applied -- do House Elves have a right to > liberty? Do Muggles have the rights of "beings"? Such as, does baby Harry have a right not to be abused even tho' his closest adult relatives want to abuse him? Athena wrote: > It doesn't leave any real avenue in school anyway for [Ron] to > distinguish himself because he'll be compared with the successes > of any of the other brothers in anything he does. I keep TELLING Ron, even tho' he keeps not listening to a word I say, that he should try for distinction in some direction that none of his brothers have tried. And such directions DO exist, even at school: my first suggestion was to take up a musical instruments. Especially guitar. When I was that age, any boy who could carry a tune in a bucket and strum a few chords to accompany himself would have many kids clustered around him requesting their favorite songs. This improved those boys' chances of getting laid. Okay, so maybe Ron's as tone-deaf as I am. He could try to use the strategic talent that makes him a good chess player to become a good poker player and, by winning a lot of money off richer students, solve both his poverty problem and his ordinariness problem simultaneously. Chess ability doesn't translate to poker? (I wouldn't know; I can't play either.) Well, he should try what he can do with chess. Start a chess club at Hogwarts? Enter chess tournaments with adult wizards? Get his picture in the Daily Prophet for beating some well-respected adult player, or at least for winning the under-17 section? Elkins, your long essay on the dangers of digging things up and Neville's rejection of warrior culture is absolutely wonderful. You should take a lit class so you could turn it in as a term paper and get an A. Btw, it reminded me of something other people have said. USAmericans are much condemned for having no history, for being ignorant of history, for destroying history (by tearing down old places to build new places; my home, Los Angeles, is particularly inclined to this). But they come back from visits to the Middle East, Former Yugoslavia, etc, praising how much better Americans get along with each other (our 1992 'civil disturbance' killed fewer people and damaged less property than the Bosnian war!) than the people there. There is a connection. It would be good to remember enough history not to make the same mistakes over again (altho' I remember Senate and House debating on Bush I's declaration of war on Iraq -- is the mistake to be avoided that of Chamberlain at Munich, or that of LBJ at 'Gulf of Tonkin'?) but it is bad to remember history as a series of grievances that must be avenged. Draco384 asked: > Does it ever specify in in any of the books how certain > individuals ended up with their respective animagus forms? > Specifically, was it implied in PoA that James Potter and Sirius > Black CHOSE to be a Stag and Dog? Or, does one end up with their > animagus form by simply performing the spell and then waiting to > see what happens? It isn't specified in any of the novels so far, but I am sure that JKR said in an interview that you cannot CHOOSE your Animagus form, you just get a form that reflects your personality. However, I went to Mike the Goat's wonderful search engine at http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ and all it found for me was http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm : Q: If you were Animagus, what kind of animal would you be? A: I'd like to be an otter ? that's my favourite animal. It would be depressing if I turned out to be a slug or something. From catlady at wicca.net Fri May 3 07:30:22 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (Rita Winston) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 00:30:22 -0700 Subject: speculation on the Plot Hole Message-ID: <3CD23C8E.48287A7A@wicca.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38421 My friend wrote: > There's been some discussion on rec.music.filk as to whether > Quidditch might have been sparked by 43-man Squamish > (see http://www.collectmad.com/madcoversite/squamish1.html). *** On to the real topic! BBC Newsround's Interview with JKR about GoF is available at http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/Fall_2000_BBC_Newsround.htm Here is a piece of it: M: Last time we spoke you said there'd be a Weasley cousin. It didn't appear. You've deceived me! JKR: It got pulled. Sorry about that. What happened on Book Four, and one of the reasons why it was easily the most difficult to write, which had absolutely nothing to do with Harry being famous or me being famous, was that for the first time my plan fell down. I got halfway through and realised there was a huge gaping plot hole. The two ends just didn't meet. It was entirely my own fault: I should have had the sense to go through it very carefully before I started writing. So I had to do an enormous amount of unpicking and in the process I'm afraid the Weasley cousin disappeared. M: Will we see her again? JKR: Possibly. I really like her as a character but it's quite a complex plot I'm dealing with so I'm not sure that she'll fit anywhere else. She'll be the "character that might have been." Another JKR interview is at http://www.ew.com/ew/daily/0,2514,3590,00.html and says: JKR: The first three books, my plan never failed me. But I should have put that plot under a microscope. I wrote what I thought was half the book, and ''Ack!'' Huge gaping hole in the middle of the plot. I missed my deadline by two months. And the whole profile of the books got so much higher since the third book; there was an edge of external pressure. Q: And what exactly was that gaping hole all about? JKR: 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. *** I keep wondering what the original plot was supposed to be, and what was the problem with it. Here is a possible clue: There has been speculation on our list that this Plot Hole was somehow connected with Voldemort's statements "come, Wormtail, one more obstacle removed and our path to Harry Potter is clear" on p.15 and "One more curse" on p.16. Some people indicated that they had an edition with "one more murder and our path to Harry Potter is clear" altho' that is not on Steve's Lexicon's list of UK/US differences. So it has been speculated that the original intention was that Moody would be murdered rather than captured by the attack on his home and the plot hole was how could Barty Jr have a year-long supply of Moody-hair for his Polyjuice? I'm not actually sure that the hair for Polyjuice has to be from a person who is alive at the time the Polyjuice is used; for all I know, Barty could have harvested Moody's hair right before killing him and then used that hair all year. Even if the hair is SUPPOSED to be from a living person, that wouldn't be a worse error than Remus turning wolf when hit by a moonbeam! Anyway, keeping Real Moody alive wouldn't require changing the middle of the plot, only adding that bit at the end where the real Moody is found unconscious and captive in Barty-boy's luggage, not any other change to the plot. Also, if the real word was 'obstacle' rather than 'murder', at that point there were TWO obstacles to be removed: Real Moody and Barty Sr. At that point, Barty Jr hadn't escaped at the QWC. So maybe the 'one obstacle' was Barty Sr. Maybe Moody wasn't supposed to be interfered with at all, and Voldemort and Wormtail were going to murder Barty Sr in order to free Barty Jr and then Barty Jr was going to impersonate Barty Sr. Then Barty could use his Department of International Magical Co-operation role in the Triwizard Tournament to make sure that Harry was selected, that Harry won, and that Harry was Portkeyed as Voldemort had planned. Crouch was only going to be at Hogwarts for the Selection of the Champions and then for each of the Three Tasks, which would explain why the bad guys didn't Portkey Harry sometime BEFORE the Third Task and June. (Also, if Moody had been Real Moody, that would explain why he so carefully taught Harry to resist Imperius.) And it would also explain why a Weasley cousin would be used for conveying information. People always say that the Weasley cousin was named Icicle and call her 'evil', but I can't find anyplace where JKR says she was evil; in this speculation she is innocent. Suppose at the Quidditch World Cup, Arthur introduces his kids to 'your cousin Icicle from Canada, she goes to school at Beauxbatons' and Percy (who was shown to not be getting along well with any of his siblings at that point) somehow got along well with her. She might write letters to Percy, and address them to him at work because his family would tease him unmercifully about getting letters from a girl at home; she might come to Hogwarts with the Beauxbatons delegation and thus be positioned to pass on information about Harry. Crouch could sneakily read the letters that his assistant Percy left in the office, or could encourage Percy to talk about the letters by pretending a mild fatherly interest. The 'plot hole' MIGHT have been that Icicle was a one-way conduit of information. Barty couldn't very well tell Percy to tell Icicle to tell Harry to use his Firebolt for the First Task (well, JKR could have made Sirius think of it) or to use Gillyweed for the Second Task (but JKR could have made Dobby know about Gillyweed on his own), and especially couldn't tell Percy to tell Icicle to tell CEDRIC (or even Harry) to take the golden egg into the bath. (Btw, how did KRUM solve the golden egg, when neither Fake Moody nor Cedric TOLD him?) Or maybe that Icicle was unable to discover some information that JKR needed for Barty Boy to have. I don't know what information that would be, tho'. So she decided to have Barty present at Hogwarts for the whole story, which she could do by having him impersonate Moody instead of Crouch Sr. Then she had to go back to add the violent dustbins episode and go through all the Moody scenes adding clues to him being an imposter, and then there was no need for Icicle as Barty-Moody could collect his own information. However, there was all of a sudden a need to Imperius Crouch Sr to behave in a way to reduce suspicion at Hogwarts and at the office. Thus making Percy more of a gullible idiot -- Crouch Jr was a good actor and very familiar with Crouch Sr and it wouldn't take an idiot to be fooled by that impersonation, but Imperius'ed Sr acted weird and then made implausible excuses for a long absence... ----------------------------------------------------------------- /\ /\ ___ ___ + + Mews and views ( @ \/ @ ) >> = << from Rita Prince Winston \ @ @ / \ () / ("`-''-/").___..--''"`-._ \ / `6_ 6 ) `-. ( ).`-.__.`) \/ (_Y_.)' ._ ) `._ `. ``-..-' _..`--'_..-_/ /--'_.' ,' (((' (((-((('' (((( From abigailnus at yahoo.com Fri May 3 08:03:19 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 08:03:19 -0000 Subject: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) (Was:: Still Life) In-Reply-To: <003c01c1f217$ed94b500$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38422 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > Abigail: > >And I think it's a foregone conclusion that, whatever makes Neville so > >forgetful, we will eventually see a reversal in his situation. > > Why? Why can't it just be part of him? I mean, I'm not saying it *won't* happen, just that I don't see why it *has* to happen... > > Some people are just naturally forgetful. What if it's just a facet of Neville's personality?? It's like all of us around here sitting around waiting for Hermione to realize she really *isn't* the intellectual type and start skipping classes...honestly, I wouldn't hold your breath. > > laura Because this isn't real life, this is literature, and there is such a thing as literary convention. In the same way that it would be wrong for Dumbledore to snatch the House Cup from the Slytherins in front of the whole school if he were to do it in the real world, but in the book it's the only dramatically satisfying thing for him to do. There's just no way that a character who for 4 books has been described as weak, frightened and bullied and who is on the side of good will not , at the end of the series, learn to face his fears and find inner strengh. It's just impossible from a dramatic standpoint, the way you know that it has to be Luke who blows up the Deathstar, or that there's no way Sirius will be cleared and Harry will move in with him at the end of PoA. And once again, I'm not talking about Neville kicking Malfoy's ass from here to next Tuesday. As someone who was once weak, frightened and bullied herself, what I expect and hope for Neville is to gain the kind of maturity that allows him to look at the people deriding him and say "Why would I give a damn what those idiots think of me?" and go his own way no matter what they say. I want Neville to truly believe that he's worth ten Draco Malfoys, because I think he is. You're right when you say that it isn't necessarily realistic for a weak person to transform into a strong one - I will never be the center of attention no matter what I do, but I've accepted that, and I hope that I've learned to stand up for myself nonetheless. I hope Neville does too. And by the way, several people have expressed the fear that Neville will become another Harry. Once again, this just can't happen from a dramatic standpoint because there already is a Harry. In a work of fiction it is the task of all the secondary characters to highlight and explain the main character, either by representing a certain trait of his or by acting as an opposite to him. It makes no sense for Neville to become a hero because the hero already exists, and if Neville were to become a Harry clone he would be useless in explaining Harry to us. So I really don't have any fears about Neville losing his unique kindness and gentleness. No takers for my Neville-as-future-Lupin theory, I see? Too bad, I thought it was a cool idea. Abigail From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri May 3 12:14:14 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 12:14:14 -0000 Subject: Memory Charms In-Reply-To: <004101c1f219$c0e19d00$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38423 Laura Huntley wrote: > This statement touches on something that's been bothering me about > Wizarding World ethics for quite some time now. > > How DARE they use Memory Charms? > > Seriously, I can think of nothing more evil -- they ought to be > Unforgivable. OK, before I get into the more technical matter of the morality of forgetting and making forget, just a little canon here (just so the rest of the post makes sense in HP4GU). *Technically* the memory charm cannot be one of the unforgivable, because in that groups the only spells included are those that are unblockable. Maybe they're counterable (like the Imperious), or maybe you can dodge them (like AK), but there is no magic shield that can stop them. Any other curse can be blocked with some spell or another, like the ones H/R/H practiced before the last challenge in GoF. Those three happen to be pretty inmoral spells, but it's the fact that a wizard can do nothing to protect himself from them is what makes them unforgivable. There must be some other ways of killing/damaging another being with spells (unless Harry was thinking of kill Sirius in the shack by biting him in the jugular, or sticking his [Harry's] wand in his [Sirius'] eye) and they're not considered unforgivable. > I mean, my memories -- they're all I *have*. They're the only > thing that make me *me*, you know? How could anyone try to take > even a few of them from me? It's like rape. Worse. > > This also bothered me in the Dark Is Rising series...at the end when the minds of all the humans are wiped. Only one is even given the *choice* to remember. How could the forces of "Light" *do* something to someone -- especially against their will? > > Especially in DIR, the choice to part with the memories of the > battle between Light and Dark was looked upon as noble, > responsible, and mature. But how could that be? Honestly, how > could that ever be made right? I do agree that taking someone's memories -completely- without his consentment is equivalent to a rape, although, as I'll explain latter, it could be necessary and even for his own good in some cases. Unfortunately, I haven't read (or watched, or whatever I'd have to do) DIR, so I'm not sure what the circumstances for the memory wipe were. However, I have seen, several times, "Total Recall". It would be nothing appart from another Schwarzenegger film except for a very particular situation. The star's memory is totally wiped out, but he realises that and seeks a psiquic to "cure" him. We discover, however, that his previous self was pretty horrible. The psiquic (who looks remarkably like a politician from my country and like Joda of Starwars) tells him: Psiquic: "Why do you want to remember?" Schwarzy: "To know who I am" P: "Our beings are defined by what we do, not by what we remember" The film is not particulary good, but that phrase is very good: your memories do not define who you are, since they are only reflections of the past. What you are and WHO you are is defined by your actions in the present, not by your memories of the past. > In my experience, it is never good to even *try* to forget. Every > bad thing I've ever tried to push into the back of my mind has > always kept coming back until I *dealt* with it. Even if it seems > like I've succeeded in pretending something never happened -- years > later it will surface again, just as terrible as before. > > And again, what else do any of us have, except memories? What else > is there that defines you in your mind? To take something like > that from someone is, IMO, the most amoral thing possible. > > I realize that JKR had to have a plausible explanation for why us > Muggles never noticed the Wizards living in our midst...but still. > > laura Sometimes it's necessary to forget, and we do it unconsciously (since it's theorically impossible to forget conciously: think about it, as long as you think about something, even if it's to forget it, you'll continue to remeber it). For example, after traumatic events (like a car accident, for example), or mind forgets the feelings of extreme pain and the circumstances they happened in. A mind, if not, would be driven mad by the pain (I know that, in certain circumstances, the mind doesn't forget, just buries in the subsconcious, and that in those cases problems are normally generated, but I'll just skip that part - the post is long enough as it is). In other cases, like a muggle seing wizard acts, or a human seing aliens around us (MIB), for example, it's better for protection of everyone to wipe that person's memories *of the specific situation.* Imagine what the poor owner of the camping would go through if he suddenly realized that magic exists. If he told anyone, he would be vituperated and ridiculizised in the best of cases, and thought mad and locked up or even taken by the goverment "for investigation" (in the typical US-conspiracy-theory fashion) in the worst. In conclussion, I do believe that taking memories from someone is bad, but it may be necessary, as long as the memories blanked are limited and tightly controled in it's extense. Memories, I think, do not define us further more than giving us knowledge (I'd have big problems if someone wiped out my memories of the English language, for example, but that wouldn't make me less "me" than I am now). The important part of oneself is the ethics that guide us (whether or not they are morally acceptible ethics is besides the case). Hope that was at least partially clear, and that it helps Grey Wolf, who though this was going to be a one-liner, promise From buffyeton at yahoo.com Fri May 3 04:42:01 2002 From: buffyeton at yahoo.com (EtonBuffy) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 04:42:01 -0000 Subject: Do the Passwords Have Meaning? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38424 The first password Harry ever learns for the Gryfindor tower Caput Draconis. Caput in Latin means a few things. A) head B)man, person, induvidual, animal B) top, summit, end, orgin, source C) life Draconis to me seems like an obvious reference to Draco Malfoy. I did a search for Caupt Draconis, and found an interesting French page with this as part of the translation: Caput Draconis, the head of the Dragon, formed east of the succession 2-1-1-1. To the opposed disastrous Cauda Draconis, this is as if all the energy descended sky to nourish the pitchfork of the top of the face. Bathed celestial light, a lot of wisdom and of cheerfulness, Caput Draconis is an excellent presage, a face to the highly positive meaning. She brings with her the easy and happy realization of the projects undertake, the generous inspiration and made lose interest in, a bath light moral. Caput Draconis translates also a natural and ordered progression, sublimating always towards serenity and the love of energies calm and of peaces, his presence indicates also as you will know always to do the good choice. It has something to do with astrology, and means the Dragon Head. I found this as well: ? The sun, the moon, and all the planets (seem to) move around the earth in a belt that is at most 18 degrees wide. This belt is known as the zodiac (see in Group 35). The middle of the belt is known as the ecliptic, or the "way of the sun." The movement of the moon around the earth follows an orbit that is slightly slanting in relation to the ecliptic. On each of its revolutions around the earth the moon cuts the ecliptic at two places. The point where the moon cuts the ecliptic from south to north is known as the moon's north node or caput draconis, the dragon's head. These signs for the north node have different forms but are, nevertheless, similar to one another. These nodes take 18?19 years to move one full revolution through the zodiac. The 18-year cycles are important both in astronomy, as they make eclipses possible to predict, and in human life, as they correspond to the age when individuals are allowed to marry, manage their own bank accounts, drive cars, etc. The sign in the middle of those shown here is the graph for the north node as it was drawn in a Greek natal chart more than 2,000 years ago. According to astrology in a natal chart is a symbol for gifts and resources made available to the individual without them having been consciously sought. It is also associated with blood relations and sexual contacts that lead to childbirth. The North Node (also known as Rahu or Caput Draconis) The north node points to a new path of personal individuation and development that challenges and fulfills us. It involves learning new ways to function in the world that are integrated with our current life's purpose. The conflict we feel within, concerning our release of obsolete behavior patterns and our opening to fresh possibilities, is highlighted by our lunar node positions. Does any of this make sense or am I just rambling with odd theories now lol. Tamara From elfundeb at aol.com Fri May 3 13:48:13 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 09:48:13 EDT Subject: FLINT-y Pensieve/Good & Evil/Fourth Man Revisited Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38425 Cindy on the FLINT-iness of the Pensieve scene: > The reason, then, that all of this strikes me as FLINT-y is that > there is so much missing or wrong. Defendants don't have lawyers > (or, at least, lawyers with dialogue). We have the role of judge > and prosecutor roled into one. We have Bagman interacting with a > biased member of the jury. We have the audience murmuring and > jeering. We have the defendant's mother sitting next to the judge. > We have no recusal of the defendant's father (and no, bellowing "You > are no son of mine!" doesn't count). > I didn't have a problem with the impression JKR leaves of a primitive legal system; I believe that was intended. The WW seems to have always operated apart and largely invisible from the English world from which our notions of justice arise. Further, rounding up and trying a large number of suspects at the conclusion of a reign of terror is a practice with a very long history (the execution of Robespierre and his cohorts during the French Revolution comes to mind) and dispensing with due process is very common in such situations; it's quite simply a reaction to the fear the terrorists have provoked. Someone has already remarked that that's exactly what the U.S. did after 9/11. In that regard, the attention given to the process at the Nuremberg trials and the extent to which the defendants there were given the kind of procedural safeguards we've come to expect in Britain and the U.S. is truly remarkable. Given the small-town nature that the wizarding world seems to have, and the fact that the WW is sometimes quite medieval in its outlook, I would not be surprised if in the ordinary course prosecutions might have been handled in a relatively informal manner, with a defendant confronting his own witnesses in person (as we don't see an actual trial, only a plea bargain attempt and two verdicts/sentencings, we don't know if the defendants were given the opportunity to question the witnesses who testified against them). So I didn't really expect lawyers. Similarly, the fact that Crouch apparently served as judge and prosecutor doesn't bother me; the jury is still the trier of fact. The jury seems to have been quite large (as I read it, the entire right hand side of a room containing at least two hundred witches and wizards), so it wasn't just one or two people dispensing justice. Jurors conversing with a defendant or a member of the audience standing up to comment on what a witness is saying (Dumbledore on Snape) also shows that the process is still not very advanced. Personally, I think the DE trials taxed the WW's resources to a great degree, and corners had to be cut. Cindy's right that clearly the tribunal as presented shows that the WW has made little attempt to cleanse the proceedings of conflict of interest. But I think that, too, was intended. The conflicts of interest that pervade these proceedings is very consistent with the impression we've been given that there's just a bit of corruption in the MOM. So we as readers know that wizarding justice is deeply flawed, allowing and even encouraging us to question the correctness of the verdicts reached. So I'm free to believe that Ludo Bagman is evil despite his acquittal, and that Malfoy's Imperius defense succeeded because he paid off the right jurors, as he paid off the governors of Hogwarts to have Dumbledore removed. But IMO, this doesn't make the proceedings FLINT-y. But there are also elements that are unbelievable, such as not giving the defendants at Crouch's trial the same opportunity to testify in their own defense that Bagman was allowed. It's one thing to have a process in which the defendants have few rights. It's another to not even have a consistent procedure. Personally, I think JKR just rushed through this, but I really don't know what to believe. In Bagman's case, Crouch kept getting cut off by the crowd so that the jury never even knew what the proposed sentence was that they were voting on, and as a general matter the idea that Crouch offered the cases up to the jury to decide, in a single vote, on a verdict and a sentence of his own choosing, is somewhat troubling. > Now, I assume that there are legal systems in the world where this > sort of kangaroo court happens. Unless JKR really intends to send a > message that wizarding justice is a farce, I would have expected her > to change a few things to make these scenes more realistic and > believable. I may be a cynic, but I didn't find anything unrealistic about the bias shown in the Pensieve. Biased proceedings happen right across town from me, in the form of congressional hearings. During the recent Enron hearings one of the congressmen flat-out told one of the Enron executives that his testimony was unbelievable, then asked Sherron Watkins leading questions in order to elicit the testimony he wanted. IMO, that's not much different from what Crouch did at his son's trial, except that Congress doesn't have the power to put people in prison. David observed: > I suspect that the Pensieve scenes show a Wizarding World which is > trying to be fair, and more or less thinks that it is fair. Perhaps > these are not show trials but they are more like children in the > playground inventing frontier justice as they go along? This is an interesting thought. I get the sense that in setting up the system an attempt was made to be fair; it's clear that some innocent people were being controlled with the Imperius Curse, and certainly the MOM would have wanted to sort this out correctly. (Crouch/Moody says in class that it was "some job for the Ministry, trying to sort out who was being forced to act, and who was acting of their own free will." Of course I think he's laughing under his sleeve at how many DEs walked free.) But the snippets of trials that we see reflect such obvious bias and inconsistencies that it seems unlikely that the participants (and the public, if the proceedings were not secret) were not aware that the desire for fairness had succumbed to a stronger desire to put away the suspects for good (unless, of course, they were popular and successful Quidditch players, or had a lot of money and prestige, etc.). Dumbledore suggests just that when he cannot answer Harry's question about the possible innocence of Crouch Jr. Eloise on sorting and the Slyths: > Now, the House system *is* troublesome, I agree, in that it does seem that > it > must reinforce whatever traits are inherent to the members of each. I > personally think that the point of the sorting is to sort students > according > to their natural inclinations, their temperaments and abilities. It does > not > then dictate what they decide to do with these. However decisions by > members > of any house to act in a way that seems to be outside the prevailing norm > for > that house must be extremely difficult. OTOH, perhaps it is only when we > know > our own nature fully, when it has been allowed to develop, that we are > fully > capable of deciding how to use our lives. This seems to be the path Snape > followed. > [snip] > As I have pointed out, one of the advantage of the view that sees the > dualism > in HP not so much as a good/ evil conflict, but a conflict of world views, > one of which recognises such moral values (the Light side), and one which > does not ( the Dark side) is that it allows for grey actions such as this > on > the part of people who are supposed to be on the side of right. > Your points are excellent. In fact, it was my own concern that the sorting system left the Slytherins outside of the crucible of morality that led me to develop my theory (which sank like a stone) of the Ignatian sorting hat that could project the effect of each alternative on the student, in order to prevent the possibility of sorting someone into Slytherin who would have developed a moral conscience had that person been sorted elsewhere. So Snape was properly sorted into Slytherin; given his mindset when he arrived at Hogwarts, he could only make the "right" choices after having been fully exposed to the amoral universe in which an examination of conscience is unnecessary in making personal choices. Cindy on my attempt to jettison Avery from the Fourth Man hovercraft: > I thought the brilliance of the > Fourth Man Theory is that it identifies Avery as the Fourth Man in > the Pensieve. If you break that link, you have gutted Fourth Man. > You are back to the Dark and Primitive Pre-Fourth Man Era, in which > no one even *tried* to figure out whether the Fourth Man in the > Pensieve scene would be important. In fact, most everyone assumed > he was a throw-away character, because he didn't even have a name. > I probably should stay out of this, since I watched the development of Fourth Man Avery from the distant sidelines, but I thought the theory grew out of the realization that there were two seeming red herrings hanging out in GoF: a nameless, faceless presence who added nothing to the Pensieve scene, and a mysteriously highlighted character in the graveyard scene with no apparent narrative importance other than to take Voldemort's Crucio hit. Fourth Man Avery simply linked those two together. And Fourth Man Avery is not dead yet, though he seems to require help from Evil! Fudge to succeed, and I'm not sure that Fudge (even if he is evil and not merely aiding evil by being ineffectual) would be able to quell the outcry that might arise among the WW populace, still IMO deeply scarred by the events of the Voldemort era, if he were to release, not just a convicted DE, but one convicted of a post-Voldemort-era crime. But the primitive, pre-Fourth Man era will not return even if Fourth Man Avery was buried at sea. Think of it this way: A new, post-Fourth Man Avery era (or perhaps a parallel Fourth Man without Avery universe) provides ever more opportunities for not one, but two complete backstories -- Avery, if relieved of the burden of the Pensieve trial, has big blanks on his slate now waiting to be filled. And as for Fourth Man, I'd bet my last dollar we haven't heard the last of him. Lastly, Eloise on the Burrow: > (BTW, one of my chidren's books states that weasels live in the *burrows* of > other animals. What's the name of the Weasleys' house? I wonder who it used > How about the Pettigrews? After escaping the sewers, Peter the rat went back to his old childhood home, and found a new wizard family living there, one with young children eager to adopt him for a pet. . . . Debbie, not sure if it was a good idea to work from home today [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kerelsen at quik.com Fri May 3 14:03:57 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 10:03:57 -0400 Subject: Memory Charms/WW social mores/Percy References: Message-ID: <004901c1f2ab$5f51a480$4821b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 38426 ----- Original Message ----- From: "grey_wolf_c" SNIP interesting argument > In conclussion, I do believe that taking memories from someone is > bad, but it may be necessary, as long as the memories blanked are > limited and tightly controled in it's extense. Memories, I think, do > not define us further more than giving us knowledge (I'd have big > problems if someone wiped out my memories of the English language, > for example, but that wouldn't make me less "me" than I am now). The > important part of oneself is the ethics that guide us (whether or not > they are morally acceptible ethics is besides the case). Here's a question then. How do you know _what_ are the ethics that guide you if you have lost the memories of learning them and acting on them in the past? What if your original guiding principles are no longer in your mind because they've been stolen from you along with the other knowledge and memories? Memory IS identity. Who I am now IS built upon what I have done and experienced and the loss of the access to those experiences would diminish me. There are people alive in this world who have suffered damage to the hypocampus and other areas of the brain that does not allow them to access their memories and worse, to be unable to transfer short term memory into long term memory. There's a man in England (or was, he may be dead by now) who suffered a brain injury and has no past... he cannot remember marrying, he has to be reintroduced to his wife every time he turns away from her because he can't keep it in his mind that she's always been there. His life is reduced to the literal Now and in the interview that I saw of him on the Discovery Channel several years ago, he could not articulate a self-identity. He could not tell the interviewer who he was because who and what he was had been obliviated by the trauma that caused the brain damage. *shudder* We don't know exactly how Memory Charms work--do they just break the connections in the brain between the retrieval mechanism and the stored memory? Or do they actually remove the memory itself, leaving nothing to be retrieved? Or is the link between retrieval and memory simply blocked? It seems to me, based on the idea that Voldemort broke Bertha's Memory Charm, the first is possible, the second is not as Voldemort was able to retrieve the information he was after, so the third option is the most likely. The breaking down of the wall between access and memory was enough to destroy Bertha's mind. Is that what faces Neville, if someone tries to get through to him? Regardless of the mechanism of the Charm, the point remains that a portion of a person's reality has been taken from them. I do know first hand about loss of memory, having lost the first day of my daughter's life because of a siezure that I suffered about 24 hours after she was born. I know intellectually, because I was told by others, that I did things with her, but I have no tactile or emotional memory--of holding her, of caring for her, of feeling the "joy" of a new child-- from a point about two hours after her birth until nearly twenty four hours later. It's gone along with memory of any visitors (I still don't know who brought me the pink carnations that didn't have a card attached) and any medical procedures performed on me... and since I have memories of experiencing those things with the births of my other children, I know I'm missing it and it hurts. Four years have passed since then and Istill hate this gap in my reality. Maybe with Neville, because he was so young if the Obliviate spell was used on him, his awareness of "something missing" isn't conscious, unlike my experience. But even an unconscious awareness of a lack can affect a person's perception of who and what they are. If Neville could have access to his toddler memories--as few as they may be--it might have affected the level of his self-esteem and his self-perception, might have improved them... He has no memory of loving parents... only of zombies in St. Mungos... In my case, the loss of memory was something no one could control--it was a biological accident and is not reversible. As far as I can see from the Memory Charms used in the books, it's NOT reversible either. We have no real proof at this point that it is possible to safely remove a Memory Charm or to defend against one being inflicted on you. We know they can be broken--apparently along with the mind that had been charmed. But until I see in the novels that the victim of a Memory Charm may defend against them, that they are controllable (and can be accurately focused to take out a specific memory thread and not an indiscriminate wiping of an overall period of time), and that they are safely reversible, I will continue to consider the Obliviate spell a Curse rather than a Charm. In regards to the moral issues, I'm afraid that in the case of manipulating people's minds with this particular spell, good intentions aren't good enough for me. We don't know the intentions of the person or people who cast a Memory Charm on Neville (assuming that is what happened to him)--there's as much argument that it was done with evil intentions (to protect wrongdoers) as there is that it was done for good intentions ("It's a horrible thing for a child so young to have witnessed this kind of trauma, lets take it away.") I just feel that there is a moral wrongness to playing around with other people's minds. And the "convenience" issue really bugs me. Instead of wizards being taught to be responsible and to be discreet with their public magic use, the WW society has gotten used to this convenient idea of "let's just wipe out their memories of the magic" and the wizards and witches just continue going on being stupid about what they do instead of actually taking the consequences for their idiocies and mistakes with Muggles. All right, their excuse is self-preservation. But if they didn't have Memory Charms, they'd have had to figure out other ways of dealing with accidental discovery, and perhaps those ways would be better. But since they have Obliviate, no one is even trying to find other, more ethical methods. But the root of the problem seems to me to ultimately be the WW society's difficulty with self-control in being discreet. Other than the restriction on the kids about using magic outside of school, we don't really see much of the regular populace of the WW actively trying to be discreet. (Witness the behavior of most of the attendees at the QWC and the witches and wizards that Vernon notices the day Harry comes to live with the Dursleys.) Or the ones who try, just aren't good enough at it to keep from making mistakes. That might have its roots in the lack of interest in the Muggle world that most wizards have. Another thought... WHY does the WW seem to have so much trouble with self-control in the use of their magic around Muggles? Is it a rebound from the Voldemort years when necessity demanded strict control of what people did in the MoMs attempts to deal with the Deatheaters? Or some odd, innate disability, much like the idea that Wizards in general aren't capable using deductive logic as well as Muggles are? Or does it come down to them not seeing Muggles as people, but as alien beings who don't deserve the consideration they should get as human beings? "That Muggle saw something he shouldn't because I was stupid? Well, let's just cast this Memory Charm and wipe out how he spent his afternoon, just to be safe.... Do I care that an hour ago he said goodbye to his dying Mum in a Nursing Home and now he has no memory of their last farewell? Who cares?" When it comes to issues of responsibility and self-control, I'm not terribly impressed with the WW... Perhaps THAT is why Percy appears to be such a misfit in his family and at school. To everyone else, he's so anal about rules and regulations and behaviors... but if he were a Muggle, would this type of personality be as odd as it appears to be in the WW? Hmmm. I've gone on longer than I intended, but I think it's obvious that I feel very strongly about this topic. And I think that anyone who has NOT experienced amnesia and lost memories can have no idea of just how important they really are and just how distressing it is to know that something is missing. I am not just what I am sitting here at this computer typing right this moment. I am the cumulative product of all that I have done and experienced and thought. If you take away my ability to access any of that, you HAVE taken away my self identity. And THAT is the identity that matters--not how outsiders perceive me. Just my two knuts, 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 Edblanning at aol.com Fri May 3 14:09:50 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 10:09:50 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Fourth Man Message-ID: <16a.d150c52.2a03f42e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38427 Cindy: > Eloise wrote: > > > Yeah. Dump poor Avery, then it all works. But wasn't the whole > thing about > > the Fourth Man Kayak/ Hovercraft, whatever, the identification of > the Fourth > > man with Avery? Was I missing the point? > > No, you didn't miss the point. I thought the brilliance of the > Fourth Man Theory is that it identifies Avery as the Fourth Man in > the Pensieve. If you break that link, you have gutted Fourth Man. > You are back to the Dark and Primitive Pre-Fourth Man Era, in which > no one even *tried* to figure out whether the Fourth Man in the > Pensieve scene would be important. In fact, most everyone assumed > he was a throw-away character, because he didn't even have a name. > > Fourth Man changed all of that. If I understand things correctly, > that is. So Avery is an integral part of the Fourth Man > Hovercraft. I only try to toss him overboard because . . . well, > because he's kind of a wimp and he lets me. I have to amuse myself > somehow, don't I? ;-) > > But with people deserting Fourth Man in *droves* (and I think we > already established that two deserters is a drove), maybe we'll have > to downsize to the little two-man kayak and give the big, expansive > Hovercraft to some other theory. ;-) > > But then again, I'm no Fourth Man Expert. I'm a Fourth Man > Apprentice. I'm just here to learn. You're too modest ;-) Hang on a minute, Cindy, am I being equated with half a drove, here? Lets get this straight. What I actually said was that I had argued myself out of FMAT, but (being the annoying kind of person that I am and always needing to see at least two sides of any argument) there were two logical alternatives for the Fourth Man: either Avery, or another individual yet to be revealed. (Another individual who is bound to be important and have lots of Big Bang potential, mind.) And there I sat, on the horns of a dilemma. Ouch! Now..... I was listening to another of those fascinating discussions on Radio 4 yesterday (good old BBC) when the answer to my problem suddenly appeared like a sword out of a Sorting Hat. All we need here is a simple application of quantum mechanics. Just as in the paradox illustrated by Schrodinger's imaginary cat experiment, where the cat is simultaneously both alive and dead, the Fourth Man can simultaneously both be and not be Avery. And if we move on to embrace Everett's many worlds theory (and since we already talk about the Potterverse, which is presumably different from our universe, this shouldn't be a very big step), then we can have multiple Potterverses where Fourth Man can be alive, dead, Avery, not Avery and come with every side-dish imaginable. There. Simple. I never knew quantum theory could be so useful. Eloise Who by the same principle now declares herself to be simultaneously a crew member and not a crew member of the Fourth Man Hovercraft. (Though a re-stocking of the bar might just tip the balance.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri May 3 14:16:42 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 14:16:42 -0000 Subject: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) (Was:: Still Life) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38428 So many good ideas in a single post! I'm impressed! I'll just pick out a couple of these excellent points that intrigued me and about which I can think of something to say. I won't promise that they'll tie together into a harmonious whole; that's asking way, way too much. ;-) ***************************** Elkins wrote: > > Like Porphria herself, as well as Gulplum, Tabouli, Dogberry, and > others who were kind enough to respond, I think that Neville is > afraid of power. That is a large part of what I think that Snape > represents to him: power, and not only power in the general sense, > but even more specifically, power as it seems to find its primary > expression in the traditional culture of the wizarding world. Ah, but why? I would guess that most people don't have a problem possessing power (although many people have difficulty deciding what, if anything, to do with it). By definition, not possessing power renders one powerless, and few people aspire to be powerless, I'd say. So why is Neville different? Or more specifically, what happened to Neville to cause him to fear power? I highly doubt it is the Traditional Memory Charm scenario -- that Neville saw his parents' torture so someone placed him under a memory charm. I mean, I don't see the connection between memory charms as JKR has envisioned them and power. So there must be some other reason Neville fears power. Well, one thing that might cause someone to fear power could be . . . responsibility. If you have power, then perhaps you have a responsibility to use it. In that case, then two things could be going on: (1) Neville must have some ability, some destiny even, whereby he must use whatever power he has to affect change; and (2) Neville must be aware that he has that power. I have some ideas about what Neville's power is and why he might be reluctant to use it (or even have others know about it), but uh, I've said enough on that subject. ;-) Anyone else willing to have a go? Elkins again: > JKR's wizarding society strikes me as above all else a *competitive* > culture. Everything, from academics to > athletics to comportment, is viewed as fair game for the allocation > and docking of "points" which apply towards the attainment of an item > which serves a purely symbolic function: the House Cup. The House > Cup is nothing but a trophy. It confers no actual benefit to the > members of the House which possesses it. It is a pure expression of > winning for the sake of winning. Oh, but this is so dreadfully *common* in real life, no? I mean, how often has any of us been involved in a competition in which there is a goal, a prize, that is really worth having because it has its own intrinsic value? Almost all of non-professional sport is premised on winning . . . absolutely nothing tangible. Warm fuzzies, at best. Personal satisfaction, maybe. So the Hogwarts students are behaving in the same way. They want the House Cup only because others want it, and the only value it has is the fleeting warm fuzzy feeling of . . . having kept the Cup away from a rival. Kind of sad, really. Elkins: >And yet the entire student body > would seem to be terribly invested in its attainment. They are > willing to allow their desire for this empty symbol to motivate .their > actions to a degree that at times seems quite ludicrous. > Maybe the fact that the wizarding world is so competitive is the reason I like it so much? :-) Nevertheless, there are certainly ways in which the wizarding world is not competitive at all. One of the least competitive areas at Hogwards is academics. Students frequently work in teams. Harry never frets about his class standing. Harry and Ron don't really seem jealous of or competitive with Hermione at all. Ron and Hermione aren't jealous of Harry's prowess on the Quiddich field. Students don't sabotage each other academically, despite ample opportunity. The teachers don't seem to compete with each other (aside from the sniping between McGonagall and Trelawney, which was more about professional respect than about competition). Crabbe and Goyle aren't competitive with Draco. Even Ron's big fight with Harry really wasn't about competition -- it was about trust. Perhaps this is all due simply to the fact that in these examples, the student with the more modest potential simply knows there is no point in being competitive. But for some reason, JKR seems to have devised a society that is very confrontational and competitive, but still has managed to balance this with instances in which allies aren't competitive with each other. Elkins: > I would very much like to see some challenge offered to the > fundamental tenets of the Potterverse's wizarding culture. I > would very much like to see *someone* within the series show the > capacity to think outside of the box represented by those four > horrid Houses of Hogwarts School. I would like to see someone > question a few of the assumptions which serve as the foundations > for the culture of the wizarding world. Oh, my! What an interesting challenge! Is there any character who consistently challenges the fundamental tenets of the Potterverse's wizarding culture? Anyone who thinks outside the box? Marches to his own drummer? Yes, there is. Voldemort. Voldemort doesn't play by the rules of the Wizarding World. He uses Unforgivable Curses. He wasn't satisified with the honors Hogwarts bestowed upon him. To the extent we know what he stands for, it is purity of blood and Evil for the sake of Evil. So, yeah, we have someone who thinks outside of the box. But even then, JKR gives him no redeeming qualities and makes it clear that the reward for straying from the conventions of the Wizarding World is 13 years as a vapor and (undoubtedly) defeat in Book 7. And by extension, Crouch Jr. also strayed from convention, and look where it led for him. So. The lesson so far is that straying from the conventions of a culture leads to chaos and evil and a tragic end. Ugh. Cindy From Edblanning at aol.com Fri May 3 14:58:18 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 10:58:18 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question -... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38429 I'd just like to reply to a couple of points that were raised in response to my thoughts on this topic. Pippin: > At first I was with those who saw the theme of the books as a > struggle between those with a moral code and those without. > Eloise: Thank you, Pippin! Pippin: but > have reconsidered. The Dursleys definitely live by a code, and it's > probably a moral one according to their lights, so I think we need > Eloise: Now you go and spoil it. Do you mean, you think I'm not.....deep? ;-) > > I think the theme is a struggle between those who live by a code > that recognizes the rights of others, and those who do not. I think > Dumbledore's code includes the right to determine good and > evil according to one's own conscience. Thus Dumbledore's > goodness is limited: though we may regard Dumbledore as > morally superior, he does not claim to be so himself. This is > what distinguishes him from icons of goodness like Aslan and > Gandalf. This is a very humanist point of view, so those who > despise humanism are probably not going to be happy with the > Eloise: I am not a humanist, but I have no problem with what you are saying here. Determinining a moral code according to our own conscience, ultimately, is all any of us can do (albeit that some people's conscience will dictate the deliberate embracing of the tenets of a particular creed or philosophy). You are right: Dumbledore does *not* claim to be morally superior. He is a wise man and wise men know the limits of their wisdom. I would say that the test of whether one lives according to a code that recognises moral values is precisely (as it can only be evaluated in terms of actions) whether one recognises the rights of others or not. This surely equates to the Golden Rule, that one treats others as one would wish to be treated oneself. It is also pretty much the second half of Christ's summary of the Law, to love others as oneself. I think that you are right that Dumbledore believes in the individual's right to determine good and evil according to his or her own conscience, although as I've tried to get away from the good/evil terminology, what I'd probably say is simply that he believes in people's rights to listen to their own consciences. He follows in the line of the Romantic revolution, as you suggest later by reference to the American Declaration of Independence. Taken to its logical conclusion, I suppose that that would mean that he would embrace the right (in principle) of people to reject the idea of morality. Pippin: > ooked at this way, the ambiguities begin to resolve. Although > Dumbledore doubtless disapproves of the Dursleys, he upholds > their right to be Harry's guardians, and their right to raise him as > they see fit. Likewise, it appears he believes that Harry has a > right to face Voldemort, even though it puts him in danger. Snape > has the right to be a nasty git, so long as he doesn't exceed his > authority as a teacher. In the same way, Sirius and Lupin > acknowledge Harry's right Eloise: What is the difference between Snape being expected not to exceed his authority as a teacher and the Dursleys being expected to remain within normal societal values for bringing up children? Otherwise, yes, I agree. Pippin: > f this is the traditional morality of the wizarding world, then what > makes the Unforgiveable Curses unforgiveable is that they > tresspass on basic rights: life (avada kedavra), liberty (imperius) > and the pursuit of happiness (crucio). Though this concept of > rights appears in the American Declaration of Independence, the > American founding fathers derived theses values from the > Scottish enlightenment, so Rowling is not necessarily invoking > an American ideal here. > Eloise: But are there not other ways in which the WW trespasses on human rights, ways which the WW still accepts? The Dementor's Kiss? Locking up a man in Azkaban without trial? The mental cruelty inflicted on an unfortunate student by a sadistic teacher? The traditional Toughness of the WW sometimes seems to militate against this moral view. Pippin: > Much of the conflict in the story revolves around how universally > those rights should be applied -- do House Elves have a right to > liberty? Do Muggles have the rights of "beings"? -- and the way > Eloise: Yes, it does. But there is also another conflict, the conflict that any society faces, of how we reconcile the conflicting rights of individuals. You see, as far as I can see, Voldemort has a right to his own views. I might find them obnoxious (you'll be reassured to know that I do), I might, according to my own morality, find them completely wrong, but I uphold his right to hold them. As views. What I don't uphold is his right thereby to infringe other people's rights, lives, liberty, happiness in their pursuit. Dumbledore similarly seems to be willing to let people act according to their own conscience *but only to a point*. That point is, I think, a lot further down the road than many would go, but in the end it is reached. He is not going to lie down and let Voldemort walk all over him and the rights of others. If Voldemort had a conscience, perhaps he would argue with him. But he doesn't, so fighting him is the only option. Is that what he's doing with Fudge? Giving him the option to debate, to consider the moral position he's in? Giving him the benefit of the doubt that there might be the stirrings of a conscience in there? So in a way, although he is not in so many ways declaring himself morally superior, he is implying the superiority of his view in preparing to take up arms against Voldemort. Dumbledore is clear that there *is* an enemy to be fought and as far as I can see, the essential difference between him and Voldemort is precisely that he has a conscience, a sense of morality and therefore respects the rights of others whilst Voldemort does not. Pippin: > y rejecting Slytherin and accepting Gryffindor, Harry has chosen > to be educated in a House that emphasizes rights and > Eloise: Or as Tom Stoppard recently put it, 'The essence of liberty is not that my interests should be tolerated, but that I should tolerate yours.' Now, I'm intrigued by the idea of the Dursleys living by a code, one that you suggest they probably regard as moral. Yes, the Dursleys do live by a code. Its a code which encompasses respectability and self interest. Would they describe it as 'moral'? I suppose they probably would, as I think that for them morality and respectability are probably pretty well synonymous. Morality in the sense of not doing anything that society would regard as not respectable. Of not doing anything *immoral* in its narrowest sense. But morality as anything deeper? As a code that imposes obligations as opposed to upholding appearances? Nah... the Dursleys have never given morality a thought. Gwen kindly said the following: >What I also like about Eloise's interpretation is that it tidily bags >up those characters who are convinced they are right, as well. For >example, suppose there is a Death Eater who is so utterly deluded that >their cause is right, proper, and just, that he will do anything to >advance it? I'm talking the kind of rapturous fanaticism that >accompanies the most ardent of martyrs. He believes with his whole >heart that what he does--killing that Muggle, torturing that >witch--will ultimately prove the righteousness of his actions. Thus, >he, too, does not stop to consider. He does not second-guess. He does >not doubt. And isn't that just as wrong as the one who simply doesn't >care about morality at all? Eloise: This got me a bit worried. Was I actually saying by implication the exact opposite - that if one's conscience dictates that it's OK to massacre a bunch of Muggles in the pursuit of one's cause, that it *is* OK? Yes, of course, as you say, it's just as wrong as the action of one who doesn't care about morality at all. So how have I tidily bagged up those characters I ask myself? I'm glad of Pippin's point, because it's helped me to understand. The essential difference is that the fanatical DE - Crouch Jr, or Mrs Lestrange, perhaps (who were lurking as worrying shadows in the back of my mind whilst proposing my original theory) - doesn't recognise the rights of others and thus fails my essential test of ethical behaviour. I'm not sure that righteousness has much to do with it, although I'll grant you that people like Malfoy might well feel it did. In the Potterverse, such characters are not so much of a problem IMO, as by supporting Voldemort they are already apparently already embracing a creed of 'no good and evil' and therefore have renounced morality. Real life fanatics are another matter. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri May 3 15:20:03 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 15:20:03 -0000 Subject: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) (Was:: Still Life) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38430 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Oh, my! What an interesting challenge! Is there any character who > consistently challenges the fundamental tenets of the Potterverse's > wizarding culture? Anyone who thinks outside the box? Marches to > his own drummer? > > Yes, there is. Voldemort. Voldemort doesn't play by the rules of > the Wizarding World. He uses Unforgivable Curses. He wasn't > satisified with the honors Hogwarts bestowed upon him. To the > extent we know what he stands for, it is purity of blood and Evil > for the sake of Evil. So, yeah, we have someone who thinks outside > of the box. But even then, JKR gives him no redeeming qualities and > makes it clear that the reward for straying from the conventions of > the Wizarding World is 13 years as a vapor and (undoubtedly) defeat > in Book 7. > So. The lesson so far is that straying from the conventions of a > culture leads to chaos and evil and a tragic end. I hardly think Voldemort represents a meaningful example for drawing conclusions about the value of unconventional thinking in the WW. Of all the terms that spring to mind when describing him, "non-conformist" would not be the first on the list. Or even the 917th. The poster-boy for non-conformism in the WW seems to be Dumbledore. Even people who like him think he's nuts. He employs werewolves, half-giants, and snarky ex-DEs with bad hair. He pays a salary to one of his house elves. He lets everyone sing to their own tune and enjoys the resulting cacophony. He wants *socks* for Christmas. He's about as outside the box as they come. Or maybe his box is just way bigger than everyone else's, which amounts to the same thing. So the lesson is, straying from convention leads to charming eccentricity and your own Chocolate Frog card. I can live with that. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From dorbandb at yahoo.com Fri May 3 15:58:49 2002 From: dorbandb at yahoo.com (dorbandb) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 15:58:49 -0000 Subject: Flamel was a wizard In-Reply-To: <000801c1f202$f31858c0$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38431 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Olwyn" wrote: > Somewhere in my regularly malfunctioning brain theres a memory of a discussion/specualtion regarding whether Flamel was a Wizard or a Muggle. It appears that he was a wizard. The DVD release of the celluloid that shall not be named, has in the extras (I ordered mine today) "never before seen footage featuring Nicholas Flamel's Wizard Card..." > > Olly Hi Olly, I plead guilty to the belief that Flamel was/is a muggle, primarily based on inconclusive canon. I will accept that he is a wizard if he has a wizard card. Given that he is a wizard, his *ability* to contribute to the wellness of the WW is seriouly compromised by his apparent *unwillingness* to contribute to same. The question looms larger then - what *was* he doing during the reign of *both* Grindewald and Voldmorte? or any other "dark force" within the last 666 years! Either he has contributed to the WW and we have not been told, or he has done nothing of any benefit for anyone but himself. If that's the case, why would he be held in such high regard by Dumbledore? The level of his power is at serious odds with the level of his committment. IMO it would have made a better story if Flamel was a muggle operating within the WW. At any rate, I rest my rant. Brian From betsyfallon at hotmail.com Fri May 3 15:19:52 2002 From: betsyfallon at hotmail.com (betsyfallon) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 15:19:52 -0000 Subject: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) (Was:: Still Life) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38432 Finally, a chance to respond. I believe Ron is jealous of Harry's ability for playing Quidditch, inwardly that is. In SS, page 211, Ron sees himself in the Mirror of Erised. While looking in the mirror, he states, "I am - I'm wearing the badge like Bill used to - amd I'm holding the house cup and the Quidditch cup - I'm the Quidditch captain, too." While I don't think that this jealousy or envy will be outwardly shown toward Harry, it may come up later, as a temptation that the Dark Side might want to use to get Ron on their side. Betsy --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > So many good ideas in a single post! I'm impressed! > > I'll just pick out a couple of these excellent points that intrigued > me and about which I can think of something to say. I won't promise > that they'll tie together into a harmonious whole; that's asking > way, way too much. ;-) > > ***************************** > Elkins wrote: > > > > > Like Porphria herself, as well as Gulplum, Tabouli, Dogberry, and > > others who were kind enough to respond, I think that Neville is > > afraid of power. That is a large part of what I think that Snape > > represents to him: power, and not only power in the general sense, > > but even more specifically, power as it seems to find its primary > > expression in the traditional culture of the wizarding world. > > Ah, but why? > > I would guess that most people don't have a problem possessing power > (although many people have difficulty deciding what, if anything, to > do with it). By definition, not possessing power renders one > powerless, and few people aspire to be powerless, I'd say. > > So why is Neville different? Or more specifically, what happened to > Neville to cause him to fear power? I highly doubt it is the > Traditional Memory Charm scenario -- that Neville saw his parents' > torture so someone placed him under a memory charm. I mean, I don't > see the connection between memory charms as JKR has envisioned them > and power. So there must be some other reason Neville fears power. > > Well, one thing that might cause someone to fear power could > be . . . responsibility. If you have power, then perhaps you have a > responsibility to use it. In that case, then two things could be > going on: (1) Neville must have some ability, some destiny even, > whereby he must use whatever power he has to affect change; and (2) > Neville must be aware that he has that power. > > I have some ideas about what Neville's power is and why he might be > reluctant to use it (or even have others know about it), but uh, > I've said enough on that subject. ;-) > > Anyone else willing to have a go? > > Elkins again: > > > JKR's wizarding society strikes me as above all else a > *competitive* > > culture. Everything, from academics to > > athletics to comportment, is viewed as fair game for the > allocation > > and docking of "points" which apply towards the attainment of an > item > > which serves a purely symbolic function: the House Cup. The House > > Cup is nothing but a trophy. It confers no actual benefit to the > > members of the House which possesses it. It is a pure expression > of > > winning for the sake of winning. > > Oh, but this is so dreadfully *common* in real life, no? I mean, > how often has any of us been involved in a competition in which > there is a goal, a prize, that is really worth having because it has > its own intrinsic value? Almost all of non-professional sport is > premised on winning . . . absolutely nothing tangible. Warm > fuzzies, at best. Personal satisfaction, maybe. So the Hogwarts > students are behaving in the same way. They want the House Cup only > because others want it, and the only value it has is the fleeting > warm fuzzy feeling of . . . having kept the Cup away from a rival. > > Kind of sad, really. > > Elkins: > > >And yet the entire student body > > would seem to be terribly invested in its attainment. They are > > willing to allow their desire for this empty symbol to > motivate .their > > actions to a degree that at times seems quite ludicrous. > > > > Maybe the fact that the wizarding world is so competitive is the > reason I like it so much? :-) > > Nevertheless, there are certainly ways in which the wizarding world > is not competitive at all. One of the least competitive areas at > Hogwards is academics. Students frequently work in teams. Harry > never frets about his class standing. Harry and Ron don't really > seem jealous of or competitive with Hermione at all. Ron and > Hermione aren't jealous of Harry's prowess on the Quiddich field. > Students don't sabotage each other academically, despite ample > opportunity. The teachers don't seem to compete with each other > (aside from the sniping between McGonagall and Trelawney, which was > more about professional respect than about competition). Crabbe and > Goyle aren't competitive with Draco. Even Ron's big fight with > Harry really wasn't about competition -- it was about trust. > > Perhaps this is all due simply to the fact that in these examples, > the student with the more modest potential simply knows there is no > point in being competitive. But for some reason, JKR seems to have > devised a society that is very confrontational and competitive, but > still has managed to balance this with instances in which allies > aren't competitive with each other. > > Elkins: > > > I would very much like to see some challenge offered to the > > fundamental tenets of the Potterverse's wizarding culture. I > > would very much like to see *someone* within the series show the > > capacity to think outside of the box represented by those four > > horrid Houses of Hogwarts School. I would like to see someone > > question a few of the assumptions which serve as the foundations > > for the culture of the wizarding world. > > Oh, my! What an interesting challenge! Is there any character who > consistently challenges the fundamental tenets of the Potterverse's > wizarding culture? Anyone who thinks outside the box? Marches to > his own drummer? > > Yes, there is. Voldemort. Voldemort doesn't play by the rules of > the Wizarding World. He uses Unforgivable Curses. He wasn't > satisified with the honors Hogwarts bestowed upon him. To the > extent we know what he stands for, it is purity of blood and Evil > for the sake of Evil. So, yeah, we have someone who thinks outside > of the box. But even then, JKR gives him no redeeming qualities and > makes it clear that the reward for straying from the conventions of > the Wizarding World is 13 years as a vapor and (undoubtedly) defeat > in Book 7. > > And by extension, Crouch Jr. also strayed from convention, and look > where it led for him. > > So. The lesson so far is that straying from the conventions of a > culture leads to chaos and evil and a tragic end. > > Ugh. > > Cindy From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 3 16:50:35 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 16:50:35 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths, PS on Rights and Wrongs Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38433 Marina: >>>>No, the Slytherins have reason to feel humiliated because they got publically jerked around by their Headmaster. "Congrats, guys, you won! Come into the hall and sit down, look at all the pretty greenand silver banners, get ready to celebrate... Whoops, just kidding! You lose after all. Surprise!" Other houses don't get that sort ofthing pulled on them when they lose. I don't see how the Slyths could interpret it as anything other than a slap in the face. Announcing the final standings before the feast and decorating the Hall in Gryffindor colors to begin with would not have been "tactfulbehind the scenes maneuvering" -- it would've been regular procedure. That's how it's done in all the other years. <<<< Okay, now I am confused. So far, we've had four years. Year One: Dumbledore pulls his switcheroo Year Two: no leaving feast mentioned. There is a special feast where Ron and Harry's four hundred points secure the House Cup for Gryffindor. There is no mention of decorations or who was in the lead beforehand. Year Three: Gryffindor takes the lead by winning the Quidditch Cup. The hall is decorated in scarlet and gold. No mention of last minute points. Year Four: the hall is draped in black. No House Cup is awarded. The House Point totals are not given. The only thing I can conclude from this about the standard procedure is that there isn't one. Maybe in Year 7, Dumbledore *will* announce a four way tie, stand on the table and dance the Macarena. For all we know, last minute points are handed out all the time. It's happened twice so far. I said: > > Switching the banners is a show of force, and that is the way to > reach Slytherins. Marina: >>>I don't understand. How is it a show of force? What power is Dumbledore demonstrating that would not have been demonstrated without the switch?<<< The message being given to the reader, and what Slytherins had to be shown, is that no matter how certain they are that they've won, everything they have can be snatched away when they least expect it, maybe because the powers-that-be are capricious or maybe because they had it coming, but mostly because that's the way the world works. The Slytherins boast and cheat because they get a feeling of power from doing it. They need to understand that the sense of security they get when they feel powerful is meaningless. The green banners vanish, just like the Biblical green bay tree. If that makes the Slytherins angry, so be it. Better they should rage and have tantrums now, while they are young and controllable and Voldemort is just a shadow on the horizon. Was it in poor taste? Of course, but no poorer than to have a school house devoted to power-hungry Machievellian schemers in the first place, not to mention those often self-righteous "daring, nerve and chivalry" Gryffs. Quoth the Catlady, quothing me: >> Although Dumbledore doubtless disapproves of the Dursleys, he upholds their right to be Harry's guardians, and their right to raise him as they see fit. (snip) Much of the conflict in the story revolves around how universally those rights should be applied -- do House Elves have a right to liberty? Do Muggles have the rights of "beings"?<< >Such as, does baby Harry have a right not to be abused even >tho' his closest adult relatives want to abuse him? And Eloise chimed in: >>But are there not other ways in which the WW trespasses on human rights, ways which the WW still accepts? The Dementor's Kiss? Locking up a man in Azkaban without trial? The mental cruelty inflicted on an unfortunate student by a sadistic teacher? The traditional Toughness of the WW sometimes seems to militate against this moral view.<<<<< Good points. There doesn't seem to be any right to protection in the WW, for babies or anybody else. The whole idea of the life debt is that if someone saves you, you owe them big. James protected Snape, so Snape is in his debt. That wouldn't be the case if Snape had a right to be protected, would it? So Draco's family has a claim against the Hippogriff for injuring him, none against Hogwarts or Hagrid for not keeping Draco safe. This being the case, Dumbledore has to be careful not to overprotect his students, both to make them Tough, and perhaps to keep them from incurring magical obligations to him. Hmmm, I wonder what it means that Dumbledore saved Harry's life at the end of SS/PS and GoF? Dumbledore claims no authority over the Dursleys, and so, much as it may pain him, less right to interfere with them than with Snape, although he does send Hagrid, who as Dumbledore well knows, is inclined to throw his weight around a bit. Pippin From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri May 3 18:06:42 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 18:06:42 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths, PS on Rights and Wrongs In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38434 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Marina: > Announcing the final standings before the feast and decorating > the Hall in Gryffindor colors to begin with would not have been > "tactfulbehind the scenes maneuvering" -- it would've been > regular procedure. That's how it's done in all the other years. > <<<< > > Okay, now I am confused. So far, we've had four years. > > Year One: Dumbledore pulls his switcheroo > > Year Two: no leaving feast mentioned. There is a special feast > where Ron and Harry's four hundred points secure the House > Cup for Gryffindor. There is no mention of decorations or who > was in the lead beforehand. > > Year Three: Gryffindor takes the lead by winning the Quidditch > Cup. The hall is decorated in scarlet and gold. No mention of > last minute points. > > Year Four: the hall is draped in black. No House Cup is > awarded. The House Point totals are not given. > > The only thing I can conclude from this about the standard > procedure is that there isn't one. Maybe in Year 7, > Dumbledore *will* announce a four way tie, stand on the table > and dance the Macarena. For all we know, last minute > points are handed out all the time. It's happened twice so far. When everyone walked into the hall and saw the Slytherin banners in Year One, everyone -- not just the Slyths -- assumed it meant a Slytherin victory. They wouldn't have assumed it if last-minute changes were the norm before then. It's possible that Dumbledore has changed the SOP since, but since none of the Slyths appear to be Seers, that wouldn't have affected their reaction at the time. Also, the points awarded Gryffindor that year were *not* last minute points. A fair chunk of time passed between Harry's confrontation with Quirrell, and the leaving feast. In fact, the confrontation took place before the Quidditch Cup final (Ravenclaw beat Gryffindor because Harry was in the infirmary and couldn't play.) So the final standings in Year One were actually determined *earlier* than they were in Year Three, yet Dumbledore held back the information in order to perform the switch at the feast. > I said: > > > > Switching the banners is a show of force, and that is the way to > > reach Slytherins. > > Marina: > >>>I don't understand. How is it a show of force? What power is > Dumbledore demonstrating that would not have been > demonstrated without the switch?<<< > > The message being given to the reader, and what Slytherins had > to be shown, is that no matter how certain they are that they've > won, everything they have can be snatched away when they least > expect it, maybe because the powers-that-be are capricious or > maybe because they had it coming, but mostly because that's > the way the world works. The Slytherins boast and cheat > because they get a feeling of power from doing it. They need to > understand that the sense of security they get when they feel > powerful is meaningless. Whoo boy, do I think that's a wrong and dangerous thing to be telling the Slytherins! The last message you want to send to these guys is that their position is insecure because they don't have enough power. That'll only make them scramble for more, and if a convenient Dark Lord shows up and says, "join me and I'll make so you so powerful that no one will ever capriciously snatch victory from you again," their reaction will be pretty predictable. It was an especially dangerous message to sent that particular year, because it was the first Slytherin loss in a while. The conclusion they'll most likely draw from this is, "When we win it's business as usual and when we lose we the powers that be go out of their way to publically humiliate us. Better make sure we win at any cost, then." What the Slytherins need to learn is that they don't need to be the biggest bully in the playground in order to have respect. Instead, the get shown that they do need to be the biggest bully, otherwise a bigger one can come along and take it all away from under their nose. Very counterproductive. You will *not* reach the Slytherins by going "Ha-ha, I'm more powerful than you are." Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Fri May 3 19:08:30 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 3 May 2002 19:08:30 -0000 Subject: New file uploaded to HPforGrownups Message-ID: <1020452911.5441.98887.w54@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38435 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 : /Essays/job.html Uploaded by : porphyria_ash Description : The Conundrum of Justice and the Divine Adversary: Literary Parallels between Harry Potter and the Book of Job You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Essays/job.html To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, porphyria_ash From porphyria at mindspring.com Fri May 3 19:13:01 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (Porphyria) Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 15:13:01 -0400 Subject: Justice, Wisdom, Trials, Harry, Dumbledore and Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38436 I have just uploaded a long and unruly essay to the files section of HPforGrownups awkwardly entitled "The Conundrum of Justice and the Divine Adversary: Literary Parallels between Harry Potter and the Book of Job." I'm plugging it here in lieu of trying to post it; it would have simply been a post except it got too long and it benefitted from certain formatting functions best left to HTML. The first half discusses Harry's experience of justice and the lack thereof and uses the Book of Job from the Hebrew Bible as a useful contextual background. It touches on some of this past week's responses to the Nel topic in that it concerns Dumbledore, his peculiar relationship to justice and his failure to be unequivocally "good" all the time. The second half is dedicated to all my fellow Snapefans on the list, and discusses how Snape's particular brand of menace functions with respect to the overall context of justice in the series, and compares him to the, erm, most intriguing character in Job. >:-D So I'm pleading with anyone who would be interested in these things to please read it and respond. I wrote this just for the list and would love to hear what people think. Thanks! ~~Porphyria [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dicentra at xmission.com Fri May 3 19:27:20 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 19:27:20 -0000 Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question -... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38437 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > > > > I think the theme is a struggle between those who live by a code > > that recognizes the rights of others, and those who do not. I think > > Dumbledore's code includes the right to determine good and > > evil according to one's own conscience. Thus Dumbledore's > > goodness is limited: though we may regard Dumbledore as > > morally superior, he does not claim to be so himself. This is > > what distinguishes him from icons of goodness like Aslan and > > Gandalf. This is a very humanist point of view, so those who > > despise humanism are probably not going to be happy ... I'm not a humanist, and you're right, I'm not particularly happy with it. But I don't entirely reject it, either. Recognizing that everyone has to grapple with questions of morality in their own way is simply acknowledging reality, not necessarily taking a moral stance. I am not comfortable with systems that don't recognize that it's possible for someone to "get it wrong," however, which is how the humanist view is often represented. (I hasten to add that I know that not all humanists are absolute relativists, and that Pippin wasn't proposing that there is no such thing as wrong.) I have a hard time interpreting Dumbledore's non-intervention in Harry's upbringing as not wanting to tread on the Dursley's "right" to be total gits. I also don't think that Sirius and Remus were recognizing Harry's "right" to have a different moral code than their own: Harry got to spare Peter's life because he was James's son and heir. Had Hermione stepped forth and protested, I don't think they would have listened. I also don't think that JKR is aiming for this definition of right and wrong. Magic in literature is inevitably a metaphor for power, and I think "how you use it" is going to be the determining factor of whether something is good or evil. I'd like to propose the following: good and evil are based on the relationship between weak and strong. If, like Voldemort, you believe that the strong should overpower the weak when it suits them, that's evil. If you believe that the strong should assist the weak, that's good. In other words, predation is evil, nurturing is good. Take Dumbledore: he is definitely a nurturer. Giving Hagrid, Snape, Sirius, and who knows who else a second chance is a nurturing thing to do. He gave Harry to the Dursleys because he didn't want Harry to grow up with a big head (their "parenting" style was simply unfortunate). Predation, on the other hand, sounds to me like the working definition of eating death. Respecting others right to have a different perpective definitely fits in to nurturing, but I don't believe it's the bright line between good and evil that the novels will eventually uphold. --Dicentra, who won't hesitate to call someone else's value system wrong if it's predatory From merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com Fri May 3 19:44:45 2002 From: merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com (Sherlock (a.k.a Merlyn)) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 20:44:45 +0100 Subject: Impossible timetable Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38438 I'm in my final year at secondary school in the UK. (Going on study leave for exams next Friday I think *eek*). Since JK Rowling has taught in UK school (or schools) then chances are the time-tables are based around the ones that we have in secondary schools here. My day starts at 9am (10 mins registration meaning we start lessons at 9:10) and we finish at 3:10pm (we only have 45 minutes for lunch.) The grammar school nearby starts at 9:30pm, finishes at 4:30pm Mon, Tue, Thur and Fri, and finishes at 2pm on Wed. My time-table for Monday: First Lesson - Double History (1hr 10 minutes) 9:10 - 10:20 Second Lesson - Double Chemistry (1hr 10 minutes) 10:20 - 11:30 20 minutes break Third Lesson - Double Maths (1hr 10 minutes) 11:50 - 1:00 45 minutes lunch 15 mins Registration (assemblies on Tue and Thurs) Four Lesson - Double Drama (1hr 10 minutes) 2:00 - 3:10 This is 8 lessons a day - no private study lessons or free periods. (Apart from those who chose to do GCSE Language + 1 other GCSE subject besides compulsory and private study making up the rest of the time instead of a 'half' GCSE.) Total week length = 20 lessons (all doubles), about 7hr 30 length school day. Since Hogwarts is a boarding school, then I suppose it can start the day as early as 8am in the morning (which is about the time I have to leave the house for the bus!) and finish as late as 5pm. If we assume that double lessons at Hogwarts are 2hrs (rather than 1hr10 mins like my school) then that's about a 10hr school day, then that's about 5 doubles in day (or 10 singles). So in a five day week, there would be 25 lesson slots. But if Transfiguration, Potions, Care of Magical Creatures, and Defence Against the Dark Arts are all double lessons (8hrs or lesson time), and the rest of the subjects are all singles. That could mean , you either had all four doubles on the same day, and two of the singles (clears 10 lesson slots) or after the four doubles there is 2hrs of 'free' time. Then the rest of the subjects: Astronomy, Charms, Herbology, Divintation, Muggle Studies, Study of Ancient Runes, History of Magic and Arthimacy - can be then divided between the other days. Or the four doubles could be spread so that there was one double lesson per day, apart from say Friday, which was all single lessons and perhaps a shorter day. When we (at my school) were about to enter into our 4th year, we had to choose what subjects we wanted to do in our final two years as well as our forced ones. Some combinations could NOT be taken, since the lessons were on at the same time. Example: Drama and Sociology (or PE) And in Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azakban (page 76, Ch6 'Talons and Tea Leaves') there is a little proof that some of the options could not be taken together since they were on at the same time. We know that Divination, Muggle Studies and Arithmancy were *all* on at the same time. This clears up three of the one hour lesson placements. We also know that in the third year Defence against the Dark Arts wasn't on during any Potion lessons, since in one lesson (first lesson, Boggart one) Snape is found in the Staff room, and later on he actually takes Lupin's lesson. Now, let's assume Dumbledore regonises Snape's ability with Defence as well as Potions and has deliberatly organised the time table so that Snape is free whenever Defence against the Dark Arts is. Besides maybe a 2hr or 1hr free period a day, (which could act as a 'break' but could happen at any time during the day) those students who don't have Study of Ancient Runes will also be free whenever that particular subject is on. By looking a PoA - if we 'pretend' that their first day of lessons was a Monday (just for Gryffindor). Just to make typing out easier, option 1 is Divination or Muggle Studies or Arithmancy: Monday: Option 1 (1hr) Trans (2hr) Care of Magical Creatures (2hr) Free for 2hrs Astronomy (1hr) (after all, we've never *seen* a Astronomy lesson, and they weren't mentioned in PoA!) Total: 8hrs Teaches teaching 3rd Year: 6 Can't think about others, but I can do Thurs I think Thurs Potions (2hrs) Defence Against Dark Arts (2hrs) History of Magic (1hr) Study of Ancient Runes (1hr) (or free for an hour) 1 Free Hour (since those who weren't on S.A.R will have already had their other hour.) Total: 8hrs Teaches teaching 3rd Year: 4 There's my theory, based around my time table and some strange ideas :). Of course, the only person who *really* knows is J.K Rowling. I don't think the time-table is impossible, just maybe odd. Also, regarding Prof Sinistra's work load, well - maybe you can specialise at NEWT level, you know, choose subjects? Maybe only 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th year have compulsory Astronomy, which would mean Prof Sinistra has only one hour of her night per day taken up with them. The ones who chose Astronomy at NEWT level have theory lessons and might be able to pop up and join the lower years and make their own observations, or perhaps book the astronomy tower. Or perhaps, only 1st years get to do the mid-night star-gazing, and the rest have to have theory lessons? Personally, I really hope it turns out that at NEWT level some subjects are still compulsory unless there are special circumstances. (Somehow can't see Harry and Ron keeping up with Divination or Potions, but those are fun to read about [just to make us either like Snape's nasty manner more, or hate him more, and to make us grin and roll our eyes at Trelawny.) Maybe Sinistra is addicted to caffine and that's how she manages to get through her lessons *grin* Steph (who's brain hurts slightly) "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 _________________________________________________________________ Meld je aan bij de grootste e-mailservice wereldwijd met MSN Hotmail: http://www.hotmail.com/nl From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Fri May 3 20:58:28 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 13:58:28 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Harry's Family In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19910598343.20020503135828@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38439 Monday, April 29, 2002, 12:38:15 PM, EtonBuffy wrote: E> I was just re-reading Sorcerer's Stone and a question popped into my E> head. If Harry has no other family than the Dursleys, and it is E> quoted often in the book that Mrs. Dursley pretends that she does not E> even have a sister, how does she know that her sister is pregnant, E> let alone the name of her son? They don't know anything, do they, 'til they receive Dumbledore's letter...? -- Dave From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Fri May 3 20:19:11 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 21:19:11 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Re: Impossible timetable References: Message-ID: <000501c1f2df$c97373a0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 38440 > There's my theory, based around my time table and some strange ideas :). Of > course, the only person who *really* knows is J.K Rowling. I don't think the > time-table is impossible, just maybe odd. Also, regarding Prof Sinistra's > work load, well - maybe you can specialise at NEWT level, you know, choose > subjects? Maybe only 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th year have compulsory > Astronomy, which would mean Prof Sinistra has only one hour of her night per > day taken up with them. When I went to school in England (going back a while!) a double class lasted the morning or afternoon. Maybe things are different now? I wonder, as this is not mentioned in canon, if there are several teachers in each department many of which we don't know because Harry doesn't. Felicia From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri May 3 21:16:06 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 21:16:06 -0000 Subject: Impossible timetable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38441 Sherlock (a.k.a Merlyn) wrote: > > Since Hogwarts is a boarding school, then I suppose it can start the > day as early as 8am in the morning (which is about the time I have to > leave the house for the bus!) and finish as late as 5pm. If we assume > that double lessons at Hogwarts are 2hrs (rather than 1hr10 mins like > my school) then that's about a 10hr school day, then that's about 5 > doubles in day (or 10 singles). So in a five day week, there would be > 25 lesson slots. > > We also know that in the third year > Defence against the Dark Arts wasn't on during any Potion lessons, > since in one lesson (first lesson, Boggart one) Snape is found in the > Staff room, and later on he actually takes Lupin's lesson. Now, let's > assume Dumbledore regonises Snape's ability with Defence as well as > Potions and has deliberatly organised the time table so that Snape is > free whenever Defence against the Dark Arts is. > > Steph (who's brain hurts slightly) I think we all agree that, if we take into consideration only Harry's classes, the timetable is very possible. In fact, the imposibility isn't obvious until you use maths: The problem starts when you consider that there are 28 different groups of alumni in the school: seven years, 4 houses per year. However, you can still juggle a little bit and have them take many classes with other houses, effectively reducing the number to 14, which is more easily handed. No, that is the -easy- part. The real trouble is when you realise that Snape has 14 different clases to teach each week, at the very least, and that (as canon itself seems to point), he's actually got two double classes with each group each week, for a grand total of 56 hours to fit into a 50-hour week (allowing for 10 hours worth of lessons each day, which is barbaric, if you ask me) AND still find time to spend time in the staff room and teach DADA lessons when Lupin is out cold (which are another 2 hours/ group and week, with only one group [not two groups at the same time], for another 56 hours/week). This means that, the week out of four that Lupin has moon-sickness, Snape has 112 hours worth of class to fit into 168 hours worth of week. Assuming he sleeps (or roams in the dark, or whatever he does at night) and that so do his students while it's night time (let's say, optimistically, 8 hours/day), the (working) week has 40 hours less. Since there seems to be no school on Saturdays or Sundays, that takes away another 48 hours. So, Snape has to teach during 112 hours each week, but taking away noght time and weekends, the week only has 80 hours: 16 hours/day * 5 days/week = 80 hours/week Which means an excess of 32 hours every week-impossible except by time-turners Now, for the tricky part. Let's assume they ARE taught on Saturdays (although I have to scratch my original idea of a half-day Saturday). That would give Snape 96 hours (16*6), which means Snape would "just" have to find overtime to teach extra 16 hours each week, which could be done by teaching 3 extra hours each day, save Saturday when he would (only!) have to teach 2 extra hours Taken out of nightime, of course). In total, he would be teaching 18.67 hours a day, which means sleeping 5.33 hours a day (and probably most of the Sunday). No wonder he always has a bad humour! The miracle is that Lupin's absence don't make Snape to fall sick, too! Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who hadn't realized Snape's troubles with timetables until Merlyn pointed it out. PD: Steph/Sherlock/Merlyn: If you're wondering how you school can work when Hogwarts doesn't, it's beacuse you've got more teachers: you don't have just one for each subject; instead, you probably have one teacher/ subject every few years, or less groups per year, or a combination of the two. From Edblanning at aol.com Fri May 3 21:31:42 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 17:31:42 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question -... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38442 > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > > > > > > > I think the theme is a struggle between those who live by a code > > > that recognizes the rights of others, and those who do not. I think > > > Dumbledore's code includes the right to determine good and > > > evil according to one's own conscience. Thus Dumbledore's > > > goodness is limited: though we may regard Dumbledore as > > > morally superior, he does not claim to be so himself. This is > > > what distinguishes him from icons of goodness like Aslan and > > > Gandalf. This is a very humanist point of view, so those who > > > despise humanism are probably not going to be happy ... > > Eloise: I'd just like to point out that these are Pippin's words, quoted by me, not my own. I went on to say that from my own non-humanist POV I found nothing in the above paragraph to object to, though I then went on to qualify this with reference to the rest of Pippin's post. Dicentra: >I'd like to propose the following: good and evil are based on the >relationship between weak and strong. If, like Voldemort, you believe >that the strong should overpower the weak when it suits them, that's >evil. If you believe that the strong should assist the weak, that's >good. In other words, predation is evil, nurturing is good. And this is where Pippin, you and I agree, I think. Moral virtue can be measured by whether we recognise the rights of others. You simply take it a step further: recognition of rights is futile if it doesn't lead to action. Are you familiar with the Chinese story which illustrated the difference between heaven and hell? It was strongly in my mind as I wrote my last post. A visitor is given a preview of heaven and hell. In hell, the people are all starving; they have bowls of rice, but the chopsticks they are given are six feet long and they have no hope of feeding themselves. In heaven, the conditions are exactly the same: same bowls of rice, same chopsticks, but the people are happy and well nourished. Why? Because they feed each other. Dicentra: >Respecting others right to have a different perpective definitely fits >in to nurturing, but I don't believe it's the bright line between good >and evil that the novels will eventually uphold. Eloise: The very point I was making. Ultimately, the point comes when individuals' rights clash and the righteous, for want of a better word, have to make a stand. As I said, if Voldemort wants to believe his evil credo, that's his business. It becomes society's business if he trespasses on others' rights in its fulfilment. This is the point at which Dumbledore acts. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri May 3 21:39:40 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 21:39:40 -0000 Subject: Harry's Family/Impossible timetables In-Reply-To: <19910598343.20020503135828@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38443 Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > > Monday, April 29, 2002, 12:38:15 PM, EtonBuffy wrote: > > E> I was just re-reading Sorcerer's Stone and a question popped into my > E> head. If Harry has no other family than the Dursleys, and it is > E> quoted often in the book that Mrs. Dursley pretends that she does not > E> even have a sister, how does she know that her sister is pregnant, > E> let alone the name of her son? > > They don't know anything, do they, 'til they receive Dumbledore's > letter...? > > -- > Dave Canon: Vernon thinks about Harry's existance in the first chapter of PS, before Harry is left in his door (for example, wonders about Harry's name after hearing wizards mention the Potters) Felicia wrote: > I wonder, as this is not mentioned in canon, if there are several teachers > in each department many of which we don't know because Harry doesn't. > > Felicia You posted this while I was working with my maths, so I'm addressing it somewhat out-of-place. We've got a very low number of teachers to go around (about a dozen, or maybe 15), so I don't think your idea -which would solve many other problems- is canon-proof. The real problem, Snape and DADA classes (see my other post) is canon-based: Snape teaches all potions and there is no other DADA teacher than the main one. About the only way it would be possible in PoA for Snape to be able to sleep is if some other teacher (McGonnagal?) also teached DADA that week, and even then he has an excess of 4 hours avery week. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From neilward at dircon.co.uk Fri May 3 21:54:40 2002 From: neilward at dircon.co.uk (Neil Ward) Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 22:54:40 +0100 Subject: ADMIN: (please read!) New prefix for Theory Bay/posting guidelines Message-ID: <004201c1f2ed$20ca8a00$053670c2@c5s910j> No: HPFGUIDX 38444 ~~ Overhead, startled listies see a dark, unfathomable shape circling the night sky. Is it a barnowl? Is it a broomstick? No - it's the Flying Ford Anglia! ~~ Hi everyone. It's your rusty mechanimagus moderator here, with a refresher on the use of prefixes and news on a new rule. Aaaargh, yes - a new rule! Before all that, the moderators are pleased to announce that the Humongous Bigfile and VFAQ [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/] have been significantly updated. Thanks to everyone who pointed out errors/broken links or just generally prodded us with a Smeltings stick. Okay, the new rule. Pin back your ears... ***NEW POLICY ON "THEORY BAY" POSTING For some time, we've been asking members to use prefixes for posts referring to fanfiction (FF:) and shipping (SHIP:). In recent months, a new posting style has appeared on the list: Theory Bay. In these posts writers label their canon theories with code names and acronyms (Fourth Man, F.L.I.R.T.I.A.C., Toadkeeper, and so on). In addition, Theory Bayers often frame their theories with short sections of role-playing, known as CARP ("Cyber-Action Role-Playing"). After stirring the cauldron awhile on this one, the Moderators have decided to introduce a new prefix for Theory Bay posts: TBAY. To supplement this, some of the TBayers have been up nights with their quills, scratching out a fabulous guide to the inlets and beachy heads of Theory Bay and a glossary of all the ongoing theories. You can apparate to Hypothetic Alley here: [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hypothetica lley.htm]. They even have a cute ickle fish logo: <"((>< Now for a quick run through the guidelines on prefixing, followed by our general content guidelines. After that, we'll make a pot of tea and hand round the biscuits... ***SUMMARY GUIDELINES ON REQUIRED PREFIXES 1. SHIP Posts discussing romantic relationships between characters, whether actual or potential, should use the prefix SHIP in the subject line. This is not a change from the current policy as set forth in the HBigfile: "SHIP: (relation)shipping material, which deals with romantic relationships between the characters. You may only discuss SHIPs on the main list if you are using canon to support your arguments. If you want to say, "I hope Harry and Ginny get together in the end," you should post this on OTChatter." 2. FF Discussion of fan fiction (fanfic) on the main list as permitted under (c), below, should use the prefix FF in the subject heading. The rules for fanfic discussions on the HPfGU lists are as follows: (a) Announcements of new fanfics or fanfic chapters should go to Announcements [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Announcements]; (b) Discussion of the merits or canonicity of a given fanfic is permitted on OT-Chatter [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/] only; however, we note that there are many fanfic discussion groups that might provide a better platform for discussion and review of stories; (c) Use of discrete quotes, plotline summaries or other references from fanfic to support a canon point is permitted on the main list, provided the post otherwise addresses the Content Guidelines, below. 3. FILK Filks posted to the main list should include the prefix FILK in the subject line. If you're thinking, "what's a filk?" check out Caius' excellent repository of these HP-themed song parodies [http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm] 4. TBAY Posts including Theory Bay content must include the TBAY prefix in the subject line. With regard to the content of Theory Bay posts: (a) Use of CARP (Cyber-Action Role-Playing) and theory labelling (i.e. acronyms and code names) to support a canon point is permitted, provided the post otherwise satisfies the Content Guidelines, below. (b) Where appropriate, readers should be directed to Hypothetic Alley [http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hypothetica lley.htm] for more information on Theory Bay, including the specific glossary of names and concepts. ***GENERAL CONTENT GUIDELINES FOR POSTS All posts should comply with the following Content Guidelines, regardless of topic: (a) Posts to the main group should relate clearly to The Canon (the works or words of JKR). It is permissible to include discrete OT content, role-playing, vignettes, pastiche or fanfic references, subject to the prefixing rules. (b) Writers should indicate clearly when they are expressing their own opinions or ideas, as opposed to addressing factual points from The Canon. (c) Writers may assume that readers are familiar with the HPfGU glossary of acronyms [see Humongous Bigfile: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hbfile.html] , but should explain any acronyms that are not in the glossary. Readers should be familiar with the list of terms outlined in the HBF. (d) When responding to a post or ongoing thread, writers should provide appropriate referencing by (1) citing the relevant author(s) and (2) quoting relevant portion(s) of the prior message(s). Quoted text that is not relevant for context should be removed. Thanks for reading. Any comments or questions should go to the Magical Moderators [mods at hpfgu.org.uk]. Magically, Neil ...for the Moderators ______________ Flying Ford Anglia "Harry couldn't see how eight people, six large trunks, two owls, and a rat were going to fit into one small Ford Anglia. He had reckoned, of course, without the special features that Mr. Weasley had added." (Chamber of Secrets) From neilward at dircon.co.uk Fri May 3 22:14:44 2002 From: neilward at dircon.co.uk (Neil Ward) Date: Fri, 3 May 2002 23:14:44 +0100 Subject: ADMIN: The TBAY one again (perhaps the links will work in this version... ahem) Message-ID: <004801c1f2ef$ee58ff40$053670c2@c5s910j> No: HPFGUIDX 38445 I know, I know... half the links didn't work. What idiot decided to try square brackets around URLs? Oh yeah, it was me. Sorry! ********* ~~ Overhead, startled listies see a dark, unfathomable shape circling the night sky. Is it a barnowl? Is it a broomstick? No - it's the Flying Ford Anglia! ~~ Hi everyone. It's your rusty mechanimagus moderator here, with a refresher on the use of prefixes and news on a new rule. Aaaargh, yes - a new rule! Before all that, the moderators are pleased to announce that the Humongous Bigfile and VFAQ - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/ - have been significantly updated. Thanks to everyone who pointed out errors/broken links or just generally prodded us with a Smeltings stick. Okay, the new rule. Pin back your ears... ***NEW POLICY ON "THEORY BAY" POSTING For some time, we've been asking members to use prefixes for posts referring to fanfiction (FF:) and shipping (SHIP:). In recent months, a new posting style has appeared on the list: Theory Bay. In these posts writers label their canon theories with code names and acronyms (Fourth Man, F.L.I.R.T.I.A.C., Toadkeeper, and so on). In addition, Theory Bayers often frame their theories with short sections of role-playing, known as CARP ("Cyber-Action Role-Playing"). After stirring the cauldron awhile on this one, the Moderators have decided to introduce a new prefix for Theory Bay posts: TBAY. To supplement this, some of the TBayers have been up nights with their quills, scratching out a fabulous guide to the inlets and beachy heads of Theory Bay and a glossary of all the ongoing theories. You can apparate to Hypothetic Alley here: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hypothetical ley.htm They even have a cute ickle fish logo: <"((>< Now for a quick run through the guidelines on prefixing, followed by our general content guidelines. After that, we'll make a pot of tea and hand round the biscuits... ***SUMMARY GUIDELINES ON REQUIRED PREFIXES 1. SHIP Posts discussing romantic relationships between characters, whether actual or potential, should use the prefix SHIP in the subject line. This is not a change from the current policy as set forth in the HBigfile: "SHIP: (relation)shipping material, which deals with romantic relationships between the characters. You may only discuss SHIPs on the main list if you are using canon to support your arguments. If you want to say, "I hope Harry and Ginny get together in the end," you should post this on OTChatter." 2. FF Discussion of fan fiction (fanfic) on the main list as permitted under (c), below, should use the prefix FF in the subject heading. The rules for fanfic discussions on the HPfGU lists are as follows: (a) Announcements of new fanfics or fanfic chapters should go to Announcements: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-Announcements/ (b) Discussion of the merits or canonicity of a given fanfic is permitted on OT-Chatter: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter/ only; however, we note that there are many fanfic discussion groups that might provide a better platform for discussion and review of stories; (c) Use of discrete quotes, plotline summaries or other references from fanfic to support a canon point is permitted on the main list, provided the post otherwise addresses the Content Guidelines, below. 3. FILK Filks posted to the main list should include the prefix FILK in the subject line. If you're thinking, "what's a filk?" check out Caius' excellent repository of these HP-themed song parodies: http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm 4. TBAY Posts including Theory Bay content must include the TBAY prefix in the subject line. With regard to the content of Theory Bay posts: (a) Use of CARP (Cyber-Action Role-Playing) and theory labelling (i.e. acronyms and code names) to support a canon point is permitted, provided the post otherwise satisfies the Content Guidelines, below. (b) Where appropriate, readers should be directed to Hypothetic Alley http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hypothetical ley.htm for more information on Theory Bay, including the specific glossary of names and concepts. ***GENERAL CONTENT GUIDELINES FOR POSTS All posts should comply with the following Content Guidelines, regardless of topic: (a) Posts to the main group should relate clearly to The Canon (the works or words of JKR). It is permissible to include discrete OT content, role-playing, vignettes, pastiche or fanfic references, subject to the prefixing rules. (b) Writers should indicate clearly when they are expressing their own opinions or ideas, as opposed to addressing factual points from The Canon. (c) Writers may assume that readers are familiar with the HPfGU glossary of acronyms; see Humongous Bigfile: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hbfile.html but should explain any acronyms that are not in the glossary. Readers should be familiar with the list of terms outlined in the HBF. (d) When responding to a post or ongoing thread, writers should provide appropriate referencing by (1) citing the relevant author(s) and (2) quoting relevant portion(s) of the prior message(s). Quoted text that is not relevant for context should be removed. Thanks for reading. Any comments or questions should go to the Magical Moderators: mods at hpfgu.org.uk Magically, Neil ...for the Moderators ______________ Flying Ford Anglia "Harry couldn't see how eight people, six large trunks, two owls, and a rat were going to fit into one small Ford Anglia. He had reckoned, of course, without the special features that Mr. Weasley had added." (Chamber of Secrets) From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 3 22:33:42 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 22:33:42 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38446 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > When everyone walked into the hall and saw the Slytherin banners inYear One, everyone -- not just the Slyths -- assumed it meant a Slytherin victory. < Maybe. We don't see everyone walk into the Great Hall, we only see Harry walk in, last of all except for Dumbledore, and no one speaks to him. What we know is what Ron told Harry the day before in the hospital wing: "The points are all in, and Slytherin won, of course--you missed the last Quidditch match, we were steamrollered by Ravenclaw without you." It could be just Ron's assumption that it's all over. > They wouldn't have assumed it if last-minute > changes were the norm before then. No? No over-confidence? No"Last minute points? Oops! we forgot!" ? Marina: >>>>Also, the points awarded Gryffindor that year were *not* last minute points. A fair chunk of time passed between Harry's confrontation with Quirrell, and the leaving feast. In fact, the confrontation took place before the Quidditch Cup final (Ravenclaw beat Gryffindor because Harry was in the infirmary and couldn't play.) So the final standings in Year One were actually determined *earlier* than they were in Year Three, yet Dumbledore held back the information in order to perform the switch at the feast.<<< Do you really think so? Let's see what Dumbledore had on his plate during those four days: one dead Professor, one Dark Lord at large, one student at the brink of death, and having to explain to his oldest friends that it's time to line up for the next big adventure. It wouldn't be realistic for him to give much thought to Slytherin or the house championship at all. Who hangs the banners, anyway? I rather doubt it's the Headmaster. I do think JKR deliberately arranged for the humiliation of the Slytherins, and they can take it up with her if they like (Could this be why Phoenix is late?) I don't think it was out of character for Dumbledore to take advantage of a teachable moment to illustrate what Porphyria's essay on Job (great work!) calls "the terrible arbitrariness of fortune." There is no power that can defend against that, and for Dumbledore to humor the Slytherins in their delusion that there is would be a dangerous lie. >>> What the Slytherins need to learn is that they don't need to be the biggest bully in the playground in order to have respect. Instead, they get shown that they do need to be the biggest bully, otherwise a bigger one can come along and take it all away from under their nose.<<< Respect has nothing to do with it. There'll always be someone bigger, someone stronger, someone with the power to take it all away. We all get kicked out of the playground sooner or later, respected or not. Pippin From buffyeton at yahoo.com Fri May 3 23:55:11 2002 From: buffyeton at yahoo.com (EtonBuffy) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 23:55:11 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Prep School? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38447 Are there wizarding prep schools? If not, which I am guessing there aren't as nothing has been talked about before, are all wizarding children, whom don't come from muggle families, educated at home? Is that why Mrs. Weasley doesn't have a job, because she has been home schooling the children? Eton Buffy From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat May 4 02:13:00 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 02:13:00 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38448 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > They wouldn't have assumed it if last-minute > > changes were the norm before then. > > No? No over-confidence? No"Last minute points? Oops! we > forgot!" ? None that we ever see except for that one time. None of the older students say, "Oh, yeah, Dumbledore does that all the time, don't know why the Slytherins look so surprised." > > Marina: > >>>>Also, the points awarded Gryffindor that year were *not* last > minute points. A fair chunk of time passed between Harry's > confrontation with Quirrell, and the leaving feast. In fact, the > confrontation took place before the Quidditch Cup final > (Ravenclaw beat Gryffindor because Harry was in the infirmary > and couldn't play.) So the final standings in Year One were > actually determined *earlier* than they were in Year Three, yet > Dumbledore held back the information in order to perform the > switch at the feast.<<< > > > Do you really think so? Yes. Do you really think Dumbledore smacked himself on the forehead as he was walking into the hall and said, "Oh my gosh! I forgot to award those last 160 points to Gryffindor! And now the house elves have gone and put the wrong banners up. Dopey me!" > Let's see what Dumbledore had on his > plate during those four days: one dead Professor, one Dark Lord > at large, one student at the brink of death, and having to explain > to his oldest friends that it's time to line up for the next big > adventure. It wouldn't be realistic for him to give much thought to > Slytherin or the house championship at all. C'mon, this is *Dumbledore* we're talking about it. Of course he thought of it. How much thought does it take to say "160 points to Gryffindor," anyway? > I do think JKR deliberately arranged for the humiliation of the > Slytherins, and they can take it up with her if they like (Could this > be why Phoenix is late?) I don't think it was out of character for > Dumbledore to take advantage of a teachable moment to > illustrate what Porphyria's essay on Job (great work!) calls "the > terrible arbitrariness of fortune." There is no power that can > defend against that, and for Dumbledore to humor the Slytherins > in their delusion that there is would be a dangerous lie. I see no evidence that the Slytherins are laboring under the delusion that the world is nice and orderly. The delusion they need to be guarded against is "There is no good or evil, only power and those too weak to use it." Dumbledore's actions at the feast did nothing to contradict it, and a great deal to perpetuate it. As far as the Slyths can see, Dumbledore humiliated them because he could. Now, I don't necessarily think it was wrong for JKR to write it that way. It *was* a fine dramatic moment, and it's not like it's totally out of character for Dumbledore to make a misjudgement now and then. But I think the overall story would be better served by adressing the implications of such a misjudgement then by pretending that it's all hunky-dory. The question of what needs to be done about the Slytherins is an interesting one, I think, with a lot of dramatic potential to it. The possibility that Dumbledore occasionally mishandles them only adds to the interest. As the books keep getting darker and more complex, I hold out hope that the issue will be addressed in a future subplot. > > >>> What the Slytherins need to learn is that they don't need to > be the biggest bully in the playground in order to have respect. > Instead, they get shown that they do need to be the biggest bully, > otherwise a bigger one can come along and take it all away from > under their nose.<<< > > Respect has nothing to do with it. Respect has everything to do with it. The Slytherins equate losing with humiliation (not the least because they themselves always make a point of humiliating the losers), and this is one of the things that makes them determined to win at all costs. They need to get out of that mindset. > There'll always be someone > bigger, someone stronger, someone with the power to take it all > away. We all get kicked out of the playground sooner or later, > respected or not. Do you really think that's the philosophy that's going to teach a bunch of ruthlessly ambitious children that scrambling for power at any cost is a bad idea? Unless Dumbledore is planning to declare himself the biggest bully and to keep the Slytherins in line through sheer intimidation (which would be extremely wrong and not at all his style), this sounds like a recipe for disaster to me. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From pacific_k at hotmail.com Sat May 4 02:34:17 2002 From: pacific_k at hotmail.com (Karie TGaHJ) Date: Fri, 03 May 2002 19:34:17 -0700 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38449 Excuse me if I'm repeating something someone has already said, (is it safe to assume an elf will delete this if it has been said?) and I've missed it. I've seen many theories about the last minute points, too many to repeat here, but I haven't seen my favorite (:. Perhaps the point was to show that although "Virtue is it's own reward", there are also more tangible rewards from time to time...something that ambitious to succeed people would likely appreciate (: . After all, most of the time, you get points, and no one is told why (though apparently if you _lose_ points, everyone finds out ), and of course Dumbledore could have given the points earlier, but then there wouldn't have been such a strong correlation between the two events, and it would have looked _more_ like favoritism, i.e. he just gave them the points so that Slytherin would lose, and there wouldn't be any connection for the Slytherins, particularly, to see that they meant more than that? Just my .02 (: Karie _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From dicentra at xmission.com Sat May 4 04:24:23 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 04:24:23 -0000 Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question -... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38450 Eloise points out Dicentra's misattribution: I'd just like to point out that these are Pippin's words, quoted by me, not my own. Dicentra humbly replies: A thousand apologies. I was indeed careless. Pippin's original words: I think the theme is a struggle between those who live by a code that recognizes the rights of others, and those who do not. I think Dumbledore's code includes the right to determine good and evil according to one's own conscience. Thus Dumbledore's goodness is limited: though we may regard Dumbledore as morally superior, he does not claim to be so himself. This is what distinguishes him from icons of goodness like Aslan and Gandalf. This is a very humanist point of view, so those who despise humanism are probably not going to be happy ... Dicentra, after disagreeing with the above: I'd like to propose the following: good and evil are based on the relationship between weak and strong. If, like Voldemort, you believe that the strong should overpower the weak when it suits them, that's evil. If you believe that the strong should assist the weak, that's good. In other words, predation is evil, nurturing is good. Eloise responds: And this is where Pippin, you and I agree, I think. Moral virtue can be measured by whether we recognize the rights of others. You simply take it a step further: recognition of rights is futile if it doesn't lead to action. Dicentra reiterates: I'm afraid that I'm not in agreement. First, talking in terms of "rights" is misleading, inaccurate, and inadequate. "Rights," properly used, is a term used to describe the relationship between governments and the governed. A government grants rights to individuals; these rights draw a line between the government and the individual that government is not allowed to cross. When speaking of interpersonal relationships, rights are never the issue. As a private citizen, I cannot violate anyone's rights because I'm not the government. I can harm, irritate, kill, coerce, belittle, and otherwise interfere with your life, but I cannot violate your rights. I know we use "rights" to talk about interpersonal relationships; I believe this is an unfortunate practice for all kinds of reasons, all of them too off-topic to go into here. If you want a story about rights being the Ultimate Good, see Norma Rae or an account of the American Revolution. What Pippin proposes, if I'm not mistaken, is more of a "live and let live" view of morality. It means that the Ultimate Good is to uphold others' right to decide what Good and Evil are. But that's too weak for me. I can accept it as a subset of Good, but not the apex--not the embodiment. (I do recognize that Pippin said "I think Dumbledore's code includes the right to determine good and evil according to one's own conscience," thereby indicating that recognizing others' rights is a subset of That Which Is Good, so I won't assume that she is making it the sum and substance of her definition.) The second reason I can't go along with "rights"-based morality is that the Potterverse doesn't address the issue, either directly or tangentially. (The Elf-Liberation issue is an example of government/governed rights, which is not the same as "live and let live.") As I said in an earlier post, when Sirius and Remus told Harry he had the right to decide Peter's fate, they weren't talking about Harry's civil rights or his personal space: they were talking about his relationship to James. No one in the Potterverse upholds someone's right to have unpopular or evil ideas and counts it as courage or morality. (This theme does, however, show up frequently in American television.) I don't see it as the issue JKR is addressing. I need to backtrack a bit. In a previous post, I said that the line demarcating Good and Evil was Predation vs. Nurturing. I'm going to retract the term "nurturing" and replace it with another, because I believe that contrary to popular opinion, the Potterverse does indeed declare what the Ultimate Good is: self-sacrifice. The examples abound: Lily sacrifices her life to save Harry's, James sacrifices his life to save his family, Sirius risks his life to protect the Potters, Ron sacrifices himself in the chess game, Harry risks his life to prevent Voldemort from getting the stone, Harry and Ron risk their lives to save Ginny; Fawkes risks his life to help Harry, Sirius risks his life to save Harry from Peter, Harry and Hermione risk their lives to save Sirius, (Dumbledore could have gotten himself in trouble, too.), Harry risks his life and the championship to save Hermione and Fleur's sister, Sirius risks his life to return to Hogwarts when Harry's scar burns, Harry risks his life to take Cedric's body back, etc. I think it's safe to say that these incidents are presented as good acts: no ambiguity and no gray areas. Interestingly, canon provides us with numerous examples of self-sacrifice that aren't necessarily good: Peter sacrifices his friends to please Voldemort, sacrifices his finger to frame Sirius, and sacrifices his hand to bring Voldemort back. Voldemort, however, is not grateful for his sacrifices, and gives him his bionic hand because it suits him to do so (and he makes sure everyone knows he could just as easily have left Peter cringing in the graveyard). Likewise, Mrs. Crouch sacrifices herself to free her son from Azkaban, and he repays her by murdering Crouch Sr. Aw @#$%^!!! Now we have to define when self-sacrifice is Good and when it's Evil. Ok. Let's try this: Self-sacrifice is good unless you're a SYCOPHANT. Does that work? ::crickets chirping:: No? How about this: Self-sacrifice is good only when you are not the ultimate beneficiary. Peter severs his body parts to help no one but himself. He doesn't revive Voldemort because he feels sorry for him. No, he wants Voldemort back so he can be a stronger wizard. There. That's better. And Lily's sacrifice benefited Harry, not herself. So that puts the axis along the selfish/selfless continuum. I think I can live with that. Yet I still prefer the term Predation as a superset of ingratitude, selfishness, disrespect, or any other type of term you choose, because it clearly illustrates the practice of taking what you want irrespective of how it affects others. The trouble with "respecting others' rights" as Ultimate Good is that it's passive. To frame Lily's sacrifice in terms of "rights" damns with faint praise. I can't bring myself to say she died because she respected Harry's rights, or that Voldemort kills people because he doesn't respect theirs. It doesn't cut it. It's too weak, too simplistic, and too shallow for me. So I will have to respectfully disagree with Pippin and Eloise--not on mere semantic grounds but on conceptual grounds as well. --Dicentra From mike_wiltse at yahoo.com Sat May 4 07:49:24 2002 From: mike_wiltse at yahoo.com (mike_wiltse) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 07:49:24 -0000 Subject: Flamel was a wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38451 > 666 years! Either he has contributed to the WW and we have not been > told, or he has done nothing of any benefit for anyone but himself. > If that's the case, why would he be held in such high regard by > Dumbledore? The level of his power is at serious odds with the level > of his committment. IMO it would have made a better story if Flamel > was a muggle operating within the WW. At any rate, I rest my rant. > > Brian "Considered by many the greatest wizard of modern times, Dumbledore is particularly famous for his defeat of the dark wizard Grindelwald in 1945, for the discovery of the twelve uses of dragon's blood, and his work on alchemy with his PARTNER, Nicolas Flamel. Professor Dumbledore enjoys chamber music and tenpin bowling." It says here that he is his Partner. Alchamy is a Magic art. The fact that Muggles have tried to use is meaningless. "And no wonder we couldn't find Flamel in that Study of Recent Developments in Wizardry," said Ron. "He's not exactly recent if he's six hundred and sixty-five, is he?" Implies he would be in it if he wasn't so old. "There have been many reports of the Sorcerer's Stone over the centuries, but the only Stone currently in existence belongs to Mr. Nicolas Flamel, the noted alchemist and opera lover. Mr. Flamel, who celebrated his six hundred and sixty-fifth birthday last year, enjoys a quiet life in Devon with his wife, Perenelle (six hundred and fifty-eight)." He is 665 years old 650ish when Voldemort was in power. He probably wasnt really up to fighting a Wizard in the prime of his power. And your question of what has he done for the WW! He is a Famous Alchemist! You can think of him as the WW's version of a nerd or even as an extremly old RICH geezer. Do you think every wizard was ready to go out and attack Voldemort? Think about it when the DE played with the Muggles after the World Cup. Most people didn't run to help them. Oh the Weasleys all did and probably most of the MoM but if 100,000 Wizards, of which at least 25% would at least be marginally sympathetic towards muggles, had all helped then a dozen DE's wouldn't have stood a chance against them all. Most Wizards/Witches probably stay out of the way and let the MoM take care of all the Dark Wizards/Witches that show up. "Mike W" From mike_wiltse at yahoo.com Sat May 4 08:38:50 2002 From: mike_wiltse at yahoo.com (mike_wiltse) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 08:38:50 -0000 Subject: Harry's Family In-Reply-To: <19910598343.20020503135828@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38452 > They don't know anything, do they, 'til they receive Dumbledore's > letter...? > > -- > Dave "The Potters, that's right, that's what I heard yes, their son, Harry" Mr. Dursley stopped dead. Fear flooded him. He looked back at the whisperers as if he wanted to say something to them, but thought better of it." C1 page 4 SS "Mrs. Dursley sipped her tea through pursed lips. Mr. Dursley wondered whether he dared tell her he'd heard the name "Potter." He decided he didn't dare. Instead he said, as casually as he could, "Their son -- he'd be about Dudley's age now, wouldn't he?" "I suppose so," said Mrs. Dursley stiffly. "What's his name again? Howard, isn't it?" "Harry. Nasty, common name, if you ask me." "Oh, yes," said Mr. Dursley, his heart sinking horribly. "Yes, I quite agree." C1 pg 5 SS To know something does not require her acknowledgement. Lily may have sent a Birth Announcement, or simply told a mutual childhood friend. "Mike W" From Joanne0012 at aol.com Sat May 4 11:53:50 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 11:53:50 -0000 Subject: Flamel was a wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38453 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mike_wiltse" wrote: > Mr. Flamel, who celebrated his > six > " . . . six hundred and sixty-fifth birthday last year, enjoys a quiet life in > Devon > with his wife, Perenelle (six hundred and fifty-eight)." > > He is 665 years old 650ish when Voldemort was in power. He probably > wasnt really up to fighting a Wizard in the prime of his power. > Actually all we know is that he was 665 when that book was written. Since we don't know when the book was written, we only know that he's *at least* 665. He could be far older, since the book could be very old. Or, since this is the wizarding world, perhaps the book magically updates everyone's age automatically. Why else would a book publish ages (which become obsolete almost immediately) rather than birth years? From lupinesque at yahoo.com Sat May 4 12:13:35 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 12:13:35 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths / Sacrificing Character to Cleverness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38454 Marina wrote: >I'm fairly sure JKR didn't intend to present >Dumbledore's actions as anything more than an effective dramatic >moment to highlight the end of the book. >I also can't just discard my knowledge of the real world as irrelevant >to my reading of the books. Fantasy and science fiction writers do >sometimes deliberately construct totally alien societies where nothing >that we know applies, and readers must put aside all their human >preconceptions in order to immerse themselves in the story. But I >don't think JKR intended that any more than she intended for us to >condemn Dumbledore. Marina, I've been catching up with this entire thread, and your patient determination has been touching. I agree with you, and I would add this: we cannot set aside our own morality as a lens through which to read without sacrificing the opportunity to learn about that morality, have it challenged, etc.--in short, without losing one of the main benefits of reading a work of fiction that has a moral intent. I think it is most likely a case of sloppy writing, as even Slytherin Defender Supreme, Ms. Tandy, suggested. JKR's writing improves through the series, and although she may commit her most egregious case of WARPDRIVE with the central plot of GF (and even the greatest mystery writers, even in their greatest mysteries, are occasionally guilty of creating overly creative plots--has anyone in the history of human greed tried to pull off a murder like the one in Death on the Nile? Real people just get angry and shoot someone, but it makes for less interesting reading), she becomes less and less prone to making someone do something out-of-character for the sake of a dramatic moment. It is too bad, though; she could have had it both ways by making the feast follow so quickly upon the climactic events that Dumbledore really *was* making a last-minute announcement . . . ah well. (As an aside, I agree with Dicentra about Fred and George's hissing of Malcolm. Whatever deeper meanings the House differences have, the dominant one for most students is "my house good, other houses bad," and the Gryffindor-Slytherin rivalry is particularly intense because those two houses have dominated the Quidditch and House Cup races in recent years. They boo the way Red Sox fans would boo a Yankee-cap-wearing fellow student, and the deeper significance is likely to be lost on F&G though it is not on Harry.) All of this has reminded me of another little moment where character is sacrificed to a clever line (or not so clever, depending on your POV). My dh, who has read only PS, expressed a dissatisfaction with the final line that I had to admit I shared. Or rather, he said Harry seemed rather vengeful and was about to spend the summer doing to Dudley what Dudley had done to him--which some people might embrace but my dh considered a bad thing. I agreed, and wanting to defend Harry from charges of being insufficiently Christlike, I said I thought she was stretching a bit to end on a cute line (and assured him that when he reads CS, he'll see that Harry really does not do anything harmful to Dudley with his newfound power but is in the same position as he's always been). The next two books bear out my belief, to the point that I cringe as we approach the final paragraph each time. JKR has a bit of a penchant for ending her books with cute zingers. I try to excuse each one--CS's ending has a sad undercurrent of true bitterness, as Harry really believes the Dursleys would happily attend his funeral, and PA's is charged with the anger and power of someone who finally has an adult backing him up--but I'm a lot happier when I get to the end of GF, where things are allowed to just end and not go "bang." I wouldn't say the other three, even PS, are out of character for Harry in the way that Dumbledore's Cup Switch is out of character for him, but PS's ending does leave the reader with a final impression of Harry that is a bit out of whack with the characteristics that have been most important through the preceding pages. It's a little twist for humor's sake and twists too far for me to find it all that funny. Amy Z P.S. I LOVED your Tangled Up in Floo filk, Marina, and look forward to showing it to said dh, who also loves Dylan, just as soon as he reads CS and can appreciate it. From lupinesque at yahoo.com Sat May 4 12:15:42 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 12:15:42 -0000 Subject: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38455 I was absolutely wowed by this essay, Elkins. This is the number one reason why I read stories: to gain the sorts of insights you have gained here. I doubt I would ever have gained them from my own reading of the books, however, so I am very grateful to you for your beautiful synthesis of all JKR is saying about memory, legacy, and the uses of the past. I barely dare add my incoherent little murmurings, but I'll do my best. You worry that JKR does not give enough weight to the value of forgetting and renunciation of the past. And David suggested: > What I >think *is* outside her vision is the idea that some sleeping dogs >really are better let lying. You both may prove right, and I agree that it would be unfortunate. I see one strong piece of evidence, however, that JKR does not believe that remembering is always preferable to forgetting, that she recognizes that not all truths are better off dredged up--at least if they won't go quietly back underground after we've taken a good honest look at them. This evidence is the Dementors. One of the worst torments Rowling's imagination has devised is the inability to escape memory, and she makes it clear that these floods of memory, far from being empowering, drain one of one's powers and make one completely ineffectual. It's true that Harry is driven, and almost driven to a disastrous action, by his Dementor-induced memory of his mother: one of the things that most enrages him about Black is that he, the murderer, doesn't have to relive this memory while Harry does. *But the Dementors don't affect him,* Harry thought, staring into the handsome, laughing face. *He doesn't have to hear my Mum screaming if they get too close--* (PA 11) 'I understand a lot better than you think,' said Harry, and his voice shook more than ever. 'You never heard her, did you? My mum . . . trying to stop Voldemort killing me . . . and you did that . . . you did it . . . ' (PA 17) That moment is the closest Harry comes to killing Sirius, driven by an inescapable memory; the past, forcibly recalled, can turn one into an avenging angel. But for all that, the chief effect of memory as exemplified by the Dementors is to enervate one completely. When forced to remember his parents' deaths, Harry can't think of anything else, he can't talk to his friends, he feels a cold paralysis, he finally *is* paralyzed in that he passes out. When he does take action, his power comes not from these memories but in spite of them. They do not power his Patronus but drain it of energy. JKR clearly believes that there is such a thing as too much memory--that some dogs are better off, if not left asleep, then allowed to sleep again once they've been awoken. Would she recommend that Neville not visit his parents, then? Would we? Surely there are ways to help a child recall his past, the bitter as well as the sweet, without rubbing his face into it and saying "See this? See what was done? You must act upon it, you must be our avenger . . . " The latter may be what Gran is doing--Elkins makes a good case--but we have yet to see. We also have yet to see whether *JKR* thinks children of murdered or harmed parents should bear the burden of revenge. So far I see Harry feeling this way on occasion, but without endorsement from Dumbledore, Sirius, Lupin, or that ultimate of parent-figures, his creator. She does not want people to be controlled by the past. Elkins asks: >I think that as readers, we can state with some certainty that our >strong and heart-felt desire is for history *not* to repeat itself, >or at least not precisely as it did the last time around. But the >question then becomes: to what extent does knowledge of the past help >or hinder this goal? Is it really those who are unaware of history >who are doomed to repeat it? Or is it perhaps *only* those who >choose to reject history who stand the slightest chance of resisting >the patterns that history imposes upon the culture and those who live >within it? Or does the truth lie somewhere in between? Naturally I want to say the latter. If we wish to be free and act morally, we can neither reject history in the absolute sense of refusing to acknowledge it (keeping it buried), nor steep ourselves in it completely. We look into the Mirror of Erised, sigh with longing that it is not real, and move on. I hope that's the model that JKR will finally endorse: one that mixes memory and renunciation. Laura wrote: >How DARE they use Memory Charms? >Seriously, I can think of nothing more evil -- they ought to be >Unforgivable. >I mean, my memories -- they're all I *have*. They're the only thing >that make me *me*, you know? How could anyone try to take even a few >of them from me? It's like rape. Worse. I'm so glad to hear this from someone else. In my fantasies in which I stumble upon someone from Harry's world and witness them doing magic (doesn't anyone else indulge in these, or are you all edging away from me and reaching for the straitjacket?), I then beg them not to wipe my memory. May I be Crucio'd if I breathe a word of what I've seen--just don't take away a part of my mind. I don't think it needs to be Unforgivable, but it has to be very tightly controlled. As Bernadette writes, it's too easy to be careless about concealing magic if you can just use Obliviate when some Muggle sees you. The WW may address this through harshly penalizing wizards who are seen. I hope so. >This also bothered me in the Dark Is Rising series...at the end when >the minds of all the humans are wiped. Only one is even given the >*choice* to remember. How could the forces of "Light" *do* something >to someone -- especially against their will? Drifting OT here, so we can discuss this in detail over at OTC, but IIRC, in The Dark is Rising they do it with great reluctance and a proper sense of gravity. I am not recalling the final such scene too well, but when Will wipes Stephen's memory earlier, it's a very sad moment. (And as long as I'm making OT comments about other writers' memory incidents, if you don't like Total Recall, Grey Wolf [and it was horrifically bloody], read the original, by the great Philip K. Dick. It's a story called "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale.") Amy Z From lupinesque at yahoo.com Sat May 4 12:18:29 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 12:18:29 -0000 Subject: Crouch Jr. on DEs (was FLINT-y Pensieve) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38456 Deb wrote: >(Crouch/Moody says in class that it >was "some job for the Ministry, trying to sort out who was being >forced to act, and who was acting of their own free will." Of course >I think he's laughing under his sleeve at how many DEs walked free.) Not quite laughing, though: grimacing. "I told you, Harry . . . I told you. If there's one thing I hate more than any other, it's a Death Eater who walked free." Presumably he would make an exception for those who then tried to find Voldemort (like himself, if he was actually guilty of the crime of which he was convicted). But he is not amused by people like Malfoy, L, who got off by claiming to have been under Imperius. Amy Z From kerelsen at quik.com Sat May 4 14:40:49 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 10:40:49 -0400 Subject: Thoughts on the Dementor's Kiss Message-ID: <002401c1f379$b0008120$4121b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 38457 I've been rereading POA and it struck me when I was reading about what the Dementor's Kiss entails and wondered just WHY it was considered the worst possible punishment that could happen to anyone. I mean, just what is different between the Kiss and a straight execution? The physical body remaining alive but mindless? When someone is executed the body is mindless to, but the body isn't animate. And we get the impression from POA that shells that remain after the Kiss don't live that much longer anyway. So is it just a non-bloody way of execution? What makes it "worse than death?" The fear the victim feels when it's happening? Well, I'm sure that the level of fear of someone facing the headsman's axe or the garrote or other means of death is right up there too... so I don't think that applies. To cover this, I think we need to ignore what happens to the body of the victim, but look at what possibly happens to the mind/soul of the one who is Kissed. The Dementor appears to take the soul into itself, but is it consumed and ceases to exist? Or, and this is what gave me nightmares last night, does the awareness remain, but trapped inside the Dementor along with all the other mad souls that had been Kissed by that Dementor? And if it is an aware but non-corporeal being, doesn't that mean that it must still suffer the same effects of the Dementor's presences as it did while inhabiting a living body, but with NO way to escape the horror? Dementors appear to be immortal. An eternity of depression and madness IS worse than death. If this is the case, the only way that a soul could find release would be if the Dementor was destroyed and the souls contained within it were either wiped out along with it, or, perhaps, set free to continue to whatever afterlife exists. But, so far in my reading, I haven't been able to find out how one actually could destroy a Dementor. Using a Patronus can drive them away, but what kills them? Obviously, the only ones who would know the truth of what actually happens to the souls the Dementor takes are the unfortunate victims. I find myself actually pitying Barty Crouch, Jr. now... It would have been more merciful if he had just been AK'd or otherwise physically executed. But then, from what we've seen of Wizarding Justice, they don't appear to have any sorts of rules prohibiting cruel and unusual punishments. And what scares me even more than the whole concept described above is the thought that perhaps the powers that be in the MoM know EXACTLY what happens to the souls of the Kissed. I really hope that they DON'T know; that they truly believe that it's a much more merciful end than the victim would otherwise receive. The idea that the people in power allow--nay, encourage--such a horrific thing to happen, knowing just how bad it is for the victim makes me very glad that I don't live within their jurisdiction! 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 nobradors at hotmail.com Sat May 4 14:43:11 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (nuriaobradors) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 14:43:11 -0000 Subject: Impossible timetable/ Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38458 Steph wrote: >>>>My day starts at 9am (10 mins registration meaning we start lessons at 9:10)and we finish at 3:10pm (we only have 45 minutes for lunch.) The grammar school nearby starts at 9:30pm, finishes at 4:30pm Mon, Tue, Thu and Fri, and finishes at 2pm on Wed. Since Hogwarts is a boarding school, then I suppose it can start the day as early as 8am in the morning (which is about the time I have to leave the house for the bus!) and finish as late as 5pm. If we assume that double lessons at Hogwarts are 2hrs (rather than 1hr10 mins like my school)<<<< In GoF, when Hagrid is depressed after Skeeter's article in Dayly Prophet, AD tells him he wants to see him next morning "at 8:30" for breakfast. Also, in PoA Ron point out to Hermione about the subjects she's chosen, that Divination, Muggle Studies and Arithmancy are all at 9. I'd say then that canon is explicit that classes start at 9. In my country , class hours last 40 minutes, but I guess that most of us in this group agree they last more in WW, at least in Hogwarts. When I posted the first message about the timetable, I had though of the following: 1st class: 9:00 to 10:20 2nd class: 10:30 to 11:50 Lunch: 12:00 to 12:45 3rd class: 13:00 to 14:20 4th class: 14:30 to 15:50 gaps between classes are to get on time to next class or lunch. Naturally, I made the calculations based in our 40 minute hour system and the fact that almost every class has a minimum 2-hours a week :-) Felicia pointed out: >>>>When I went to school in England (going back a while!) a double class lasted the morning or afternoon. Maybe things are different now?<<< I don't know what it's like in Muggle England, but it *is* like this in the Potterverse. Based on canon (I don't have PoA with me now but it clearly states that after double potions they go to the great hall for lunch.) And Steph added to the Astronomy debate suggesting: >>>>Also, regarding Prof Sinistra's work load, well - maybe you can specialise at NEWT level, you know, choose subjects? Maybe only 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th year have compulsory Astronomy, which would mean Prof Sinistra has only one hour of her night per day taken up with them.<<<< It's a possibility. History of Magic could become an optative subject too, for the well being of the kids ;-p Steph: >>>>The ones who chose Astronomy at NEWT level have theory lessons and might be able to pop up and join the lower years and make their own observations, or perhaps book the astronomy tower. Or perhaps, only 1st years get to do the mid-night star-gazing, and the rest have to have theory lessons?<<<< I doubt of an all-theory Astronomy year, for star-gazing is what makes it fun. (my boyfriend used to work in an observatory). However, theory lessons are of course a must, and a good way to take advantage of a cloudy night. Unless of course that wizarding telescopes can scan the sky despite clouds, mist, or a big full moon! And speaking of full moon, Grey Wolf observed: >>>>The real trouble is when you realise that Snape has 14 different clases to teach each week, at the very least, and that (as canon itself seems to point), he's actually got two double classes with each group each week, for a grand total of 56 hours to fit into a 50- hour week (allowing for 10 hours worth of lessons each day, which is barbaric, if you ask me) AND still find time to spend time in the staff room and teach DADA lessons when Lupin is out cold (which are another 2 hours/group and week, with only one group [not two groups at the same time], for another 56 hours/week). This means that, the week out of four that Lupin has moon-sickness, Snape has 112 hours worth of class to fit into 168 hours worth of week.<<<< Oops!, I say. Doesn't Lupin transform *one* night a month? Anyone can clarify what evidence is in canon about how long does poor old Remus have to stay curled up in his office? *** Dave quoted EtonBuffy: > I was just re-reading Sorcerer's Stone and a question popped into my > head. If Harry has no other family than the Dursleys, and it is > quoted often in the book that Mrs. Dursley pretends that she does >not even have a sister, how does she know that her sister is >pregnant,> let alone the name of her son? Then responded: >They don't know anything, do they, 'til they receive Dumbledore's letter...? I believe this comes from the false assumption that because Petunia doesn't talk to Lily, Lily behaves the same way about Petunia. In fact, in the first chapters of PS, we hear her talking about what a vulgar name 'Harry' is that her sister named her son. The fact that Petunia pretends *to the world* that she doesn't have a sister doesn't mean she's not conscious of it (envious, regretful, fidgeting people like Petunia *need* to know what the object of their grudge is up to - I unfortunately happen to know a few cases). OTOH, I don't picture Lily pretending her sister doesn't exist. I rather imagine her writing regularly to Petunia to update her in her life -perhaps in the hopes that making up with her is possible? What they cannot know about, though, is the Potters' death, so Dumbledore explains this in the letter. So they end up stuck with the freak baby of the freak sister who's just died in the freakest way they can imagine. And who tells us they aren't afraid that this mad wizard who's killed the freak sister may come back to Privet Drive to finish the freak kid killing? Nuri, who has to ens this post abruptly bc her beloved HP-loather boyfriend needs the computer to do things far more productive than this. Or so he thinks! :-p From nobradors at hotmail.com Sat May 4 15:51:40 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (nuriaobradors) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 15:51:40 -0000 Subject: Flamel was a wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38459 Joanne wrote: > Actually all we know is that he was 665 when that book was written. Since we > don't know when the book was written, we only know that he's *at least* 665. > He could be far older, since the book could be very old. The real Nicolas Flamel was born in 1330. So by the time PS takes place, he should actually be 661. OTOH, his wife couldn't be 658 since teh real Perenelle was older than her husband. Here's a couple of links: http://www.ritmanlibrary.nl/silent-57.html http://www.alchemylab.com/flamel.htm Then she read my thoughts by saying: > Or, since this is the wizarding world, perhaps the book magically updates > everyone's age automatically. Why else would a book publish ages (which become > obsolete almost immediately) rather than birth years? I thought exactly the same thing! and IIRC, I think this is not the only time we've seen reference to ages or "last years" in quotes from books in the Potterverse. Correct me if I'm wrong. Nuri, who got to grab the computer for another 15 glorious minutes! From diana at slashcity.com Sat May 4 15:45:12 2002 From: diana at slashcity.com (Diana Williams) Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 11:45:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Impossible timetable/ References: Message-ID: <00e501c1f382$adea0e20$0a02a8c0@DianaPC> No: HPFGUIDX 38460 From: "nuriaobradors" > And Steph added to the Astronomy debate suggesting: > >>>>Also, regarding Prof Sinistra's work load, well - maybe you can > specialise at NEWT level, you know, choose subjects? Maybe only 1st, > 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th year have compulsory Astronomy, which would > mean Prof Sinistra has only one hour of her night per day taken up > with them.<<<< > > Steph: > >>>>The ones who chose Astronomy at NEWT level have theory lessons > and might be able to pop up and join the lower years and make > their own observations, or perhaps book the astronomy tower. Or > perhaps, only 1st years get to do the mid-night star-gazing, and the > rest have to have theory lessons?<<<< > > I doubt of an all-theory Astronomy year, for star-gazing is what > makes it fun. (my boyfriend used to work in an observatory). However, > theory lessons are of course a must, and a good way to take advantage > of a cloudy night. Unless of course that wizarding telescopes can > scan the sky despite clouds, mist, or a big full moon! I don't know if this helps, but I took Astronomy for my required science course in college, and we actually did very little star-gazing (although I agree that it was a lot more fun doing that). In fact, the entire first semester was history and definitions, and the second semester was all theory and calculations. Hogwarts might not concentrate as much as the "muggle world" would on people like Copernicus and Galileo, on the discovery of planets and black holes, etc., but I imagine they would still have to cover the Wizarding world's history of Astronomy. And being able to calculate things like phases of the moon, etc., would be very important for magical reasons. So maybe the early years of Astronomy are at night to get them acquainted with the night sky and the various constellations, stars, and planets, and then the older years are more theory and history oriented so those classes could be held during the day time. Diana W. From catlady at wicca.net Sat May 4 16:55:32 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 16:55:32 -0000 Subject: Unforgivable Curses (was: Memory Charms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38461 Before I get to my point, Hey Marina! I completely agree with you on the "dissing the Slyths" thread! --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > OK, before I get into the more technical matter of the morality of > forgetting and making forget, just a little canon here (just so the > rest of the post makes sense in HP4GU). *Technically* the memory > charm cannot be one of the unforgivable, because in that group the > only spells included are those that are unblockable. Maybe they're > counterable (like the Imperious), or maybe you can dodge them (like > AK), but there is no magic shield that can stop them. Any other > curse can be blocked with some spell or another, like the ones > H/R/H practiced before the last challenge in GoF. Those three > happen to be pretty inmoral spells, but it's the fact that a > wizard can do nothing to protect himself from them is what makes > them unforgivable. Hey, Grey Wolf! I keep wondering WHAT makes the Unforgiveable Curses unforgiveable. IS there someplace in canon that states that the reason is that they are the only three spells that cannot be blocked? I recall "Moody" saying that the AK cannot be blocked but do not recall him saying that Crucio or Imperius cannot be blocked. Do we know whether there are any other spells, beside the 3 Unforgiveables, that cannot be blocked? Some other explanations have been proposed for why the Unforgiveables are unforgiveable. Some say, because they accomplish pretty immoral (your phrase) effects, but I disagree, because there are a lot of spells that accomplishment pretty immoral effects. All the other explanations hypothesise information not given in canon, such as, the 3 Unforgiveables damage the recipient's soul not just hiser body. Or casting an Unforgiveable requires summing up a level of hate and arrogance (or some other set of Bad feelings) in oneself; no wizard, no matter how magically powerful, can cast an Unforgiveable unless heesh has this internal Badness. Or the one I sort like, that casting an Unforgiveable leaves a residue of Badness in the caster, so that a previously okay person can become as evil as Voldemort by repeatedly casting Unforgiveables. From Edblanning at aol.com Sat May 4 17:00:16 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 13:00:16 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question -... Message-ID: <6.286a92d0.2a056da0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38462 Dicentra: > I'd like to propose the following: good and evil are based on the > relationship between weak and strong. If, like Voldemort, you believe > that the strong should overpower the weak when it suits them, that's > evil. If you believe that the strong should assist the weak, that's > good. In other words, predation is evil, nurturing is good. > > Eloise responds: > > And this is where Pippin, you and I agree, I think. Moral virtue can > be measured by whether we recognize the rights of others. You simply > take it a step further: recognition of rights is futile if it doesn't > lead to action. > > Dicentra reiterates: > > I'm afraid that I'm not in agreement. First, talking in terms of > "rights" is misleading, inaccurate, and inadequate. "Rights," > properly used, is a term used to describe the relationship between > governments and the governed. A government grants rights to > individuals; these rights draw a line between the government and the > individual that government is not allowed to cross. When speaking of > interpersonal relationships, rights are never the issue. As a > private citizen, I cannot violate anyone's rights because I'm not the > government. I can harm, irritate, kill, coerce, belittle, and > otherwise interfere with your life, but I cannot violate your > rights. I know we use "rights" to talk about interpersonal > relationships; I believe this is an unfortunate practice for all > kinds of reasons, all of them too off-topic to go into here. If you > want a story about rights being the Ultimate Good, see Norma Rae or > Eloise OK, maybe we shouldn't use the term 'rights'. I'm obviously guilty of using the word in a way that's not technically correct. I have no training in philosophy, ethics or law. All my ideas are entirely home sprung and in addition I'm really thinking out loud, which I suppose is dangerous in a forum such as this. So apologies if my thoughts sometimes seem confused. And thanks for the opportunity to work them out. I started responding to Pippin's answer to my post because at first I felt that I disagreed. I still hold to the tenets of what I said previously (post #38317), but I then realised that what Pippin had said allowed me to develop my thinking on this matter. My theory, which is developed in relation to Snape as GEORGE'S SISTER DIANA (see Hypothetic Alley; am I allowed to mention this?) is that the conflict in HP is not between good and evil but between the recognition and denial of moral values. As such, it neatly sidesteps the actual problem of what we mean by good and evil, so perhaps I shouldn't have got involved here! > What Pippin proposes, if I'm not mistaken, is more of a "live and let > live" view of morality. It means that the Ultimate Good is to uphold > others' right to decide what Good and Evil are. But that's too weak > for me. I can accept it as a subset of Good, but not the apex--not > the embodiment. (I do recognize that Pippin said "I think > Dumbledore's code includes the right to determine good and evil > according to one's own conscience," thereby indicating that > recognizing others' rights is a subset of That Which Is Good, so I > won't assume that she is making it the sum and substance of her > That's certainly what I was attempting to say. I was suggesting that it is useful as a *measure* of moral behaviour. Actions speak louder than words, and all that. It is all very well to claim the moral high ground, but our actions (principally those towards others) show whether these are empty words or not. And I also pointed out that Dumbledore's 'live and let live' policy only went so far. Ultimately we get to the point where a stand has to be taken. Dicentra: > The second reason I can't go along with "rights"-based morality is > that the Potterverse doesn't address the issue, either directly or > tangentially. (The Elf-Liberation issue is an example of > government/governed rights, which is not the same as "live and let > live.") As I said in an earlier post, when Sirius and Remus told > Harry he had the right to decide Peter's fate, they weren't talking > about Harry's civil rights or his personal space: they were talking > about his relationship to James. No one in the Potterverse upholds > someone's right to have unpopular or evil ideas and counts it as > courage or morality. (This theme does, however, show up frequently in > Eloise: This, I think, is what I was trying to address when I pointed out that the Tough attitude of the WW is at variance with Dumbledore's view. The attitudes of, for example, Fudge or Malfoy are those of respected parts of the establishment. It is Dumbledore's attitude that highlights their moral bankruptcy. Dumbledore does on the other hand (it seems to me) uphold people's rights (for want of a better word) to have unpopular views and sometimes to act in less than ideal ways. His laissez-faire attitude towards staff and students. What are Snape's attitudes and actions if not unpopular and by general standards pretty evil? Dicentra: > I need to backtrack a bit. In a previous post, I said that the line > demarcating Good and Evil was Predation vs. Nurturing. I'm going to > retract the term "nurturing" and replace it with another, because I > believe that contrary to popular opinion, the Potterverse does indeed > > The examples abound: > > Lily sacrifices her life to save Harry's, James sacrifices his life > to save his family, Sirius risks his life to protect the Potters, Ron > sacrifices himself in the chess game, Harry risks his life to prevent > Voldemort from getting the stone, Harry and Ron risk their lives to > save Ginny; Fawkes risks his life to help Harry, Sirius risks his > life to save Harry from Peter, Harry and Hermione risk their lives to > save Sirius, (Dumbledore could have gotten himself in trouble, too.), > Harry risks his life and the championship to save Hermione and > Fleur's sister, Sirius risks his life to return to Hogwarts when > Harry's scar burns, Harry risks his life to take Cedric's body back, > etc.I think it's safe to say that these incidents are presented as good > Eloise: Yes, but.... Dicentra: > us with numerous examples of self-sacrifice > that aren't necessarily good: Peter sacrifices his friends to please > Voldemort, sacrifices > his finger to frame Sirius, and sacrifices his hand to bring > Voldemort back. Voldemort, however, is not grateful for his > sacrifices, and gives him his bionic hand because it suits him to do > so (and he makes sure everyone knows he could just as easily have > left Peter cringing in the graveyard). Likewise, Mrs. Crouch > sacrifices herself to free her son from Azkaban, and he repays her by > murdering Crouch Sr. > > Aw @#$%^!!! Now we have to define when self-sacrifice is Good and > when it's Evil. > Eloise: Exactly. That's why I was having problems with Gwen saying that my (recognising the concept of morality/ denying the existence of morality) theory tidily bagged up fanatical characters. Dicentra: Ok. Let's try this: Self-sacrifice is good unless > you're a SYCOPHANT. Does that work? > > ::crickets chirping:: > > No? How about this: Self-sacrifice is good only when you are not the > ultimate beneficiary. Peter severs his body parts to help no one but > himself. He doesn't revive Voldemort because he feels sorry for him. > No, he wants Voldemort back so he can be a stronger wizard. There. > That's better. And Lily's sacrifice benefited Harry, not herself. > > So that puts the axis along the selfish/selfless continuum. I think > Eloise: Well, I think that's actually what I was trying to convey, although obviously not clearly enough. But what about Gwen's fanatics, the ones who really believe the terrible things they do are for the good of others? What about the Mrs Lestranges? As I said, in the Potterverse, I can rationalise these characters because of the Voldemort credo. The Potterverse situation is also simpler because it appears to have no god, no religious ideal. But it doesn't deal with the real life situations with which we are all too familiar, where people who *do* belive in morality, in higher virtues still do unspeakable things, often in the name of the highest authority. Perhaps I shouldn't be straying into real life, but if a book is giving a moral message, as the HP series appears to be doing, then we should be able to transfer this message to real life. Dicentra: > Yet I still prefer the term Predation as a superset of ingratitude, > selfishness, disrespect, or any other type of term you choose, > because it clearly illustrates the practice of taking what you want > irrespective of how it affects others. > > The trouble with "respecting others' rights" as Ultimate Good is > that it's passive. To frame Lily's sacrifice in terms of "rights" > damns with faint praise. I can't bring myself to say she died because > she respected Harry's rights, or that Voldemort kills people because > he doesn't respect theirs. It doesn't cut it. It's too weak, too > Eloise: True. Though Lily sacrificed herself for her own child, which I think is something a lot of us could relate to. It is, dare I say it, not necessarily the highest expression of virtue. It's something that's more, well instinctive, I suppose. I can see myself doing that. I can't see myself.....I don't know.....well, to take an example from Cindy, deliberately subjecting myself to a Cruciatus to save my fellow DEs from one. That isn't to say that Lily's act isn't one of supreme good, if we must use that word, but just that it's an instinctive act of goodness, one that in effect, she had no control over. Sacrificing myself for my child would be an act motivated by a number of things: instinct, love, the knowledge of how unbearable life would be knowing I had not saved him/her. But I'm afraid I can't envisage myself sacrificing myself for something I believed in, sacrificing myself out of moral duty. Maybe it's because I'm not a fanatic, but I think there are many who have done so without being fanatics. I am sure that this is what Dumbledore will do and that it will be a supremely good act, one motivated by his belief in what is right. But whilst I am in total agreement with you that 'respecting others' rights' may be too passive to be the ultimate expression of good/evil, I do think our treatment of others is a useful yardstick by which we can measure how we're doing. Morality doesn't exist in a vacuum. And yes, I would say that truly respecting others actually involves putting their needs first. > > So I will have to respectfully disagree with Pippin and Eloise--not > My problem is that I'm trying not to disagree with anyone, and evidently not succeeding! :-) Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat May 4 17:40:55 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 17:40:55 -0000 Subject: Impossible timetable/Unforgivable Curses In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38463 Nuria commented on one of my posts: > And speaking of full moon, Grey Wolf observed: > >>>>The real trouble is when you realise that Snape has 14 different > clases to teach each week, at the very least, and that (as canon > itself seems to point), he's actually got two double classes with > each group each week, for a grand total of 56 hours to fit into a 50- > hour week (allowing for 10 hours worth of lessons each day, which is > barbaric, if you ask me) AND still find time to spend time in the > staff room and teach DADA lessons when Lupin is out cold (which are > another 2 hours/group and week, with only one group [not two groups > at the same time], for another 56 hours/week). This means that, the > week out of four that Lupin has moon-sickness, Snape has 112 hours > worth of class to fit into 168 hours worth of week.<<<< > > Oops!, I say. Doesn't Lupin transform *one* night a month? Anyone can > clarify what evidence is in canon about how long does poor old Remus > have to stay curled up in his office? > *** Yes, he seems to turn onto a wolf only one night every few months (it takes three months since start of the year for him to be absent), but when he *does* change he's pretty sick for a few days and, until he recovers, Snape does his lessons (whether or not his sickness is an after-effect of Snape's wolfbane potion is beside the point). I don't think it actually happened, but it is theorically possible that if he changes on a Monday, he's away until Friday, thus making Snape double the number of hours he has to impart. At any rate, no-one has commented on the fact that he seems to teach 56 hours/week, when most of you only assign 20 hour-slots a week (two slots before lunch and two afterwards) catlady_de_los_angeles "cat" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > > > OK, before I get into the more technical matter of the morality of > > forgetting and making forget, just a little canon here (just so the > > rest of the post makes sense in HP4GU). *Technically* the memory > > charm cannot be one of the unforgivable, because in that group the > > only spells included are those that are unblockable. Maybe they're > > counterable (like the Imperious), or maybe you can dodge them (like > > AK), but there is no magic shield that can stop them. Any other > > curse can be blocked with some spell or another, like the ones > > H/R/H practiced before the last challenge in GoF. Those three > > happen to be pretty inmoral spells, but it's the fact that a > > wizard can do nothing to protect himself from them is what makes > > them unforgivable. > > Hey, Grey Wolf! I keep wondering WHAT makes the Unforgiveable Curses > unforgiveable. IS there someplace in canon that states that the > reason is that they are the only three spells that cannot be blocked? > I recall "Moody" saying that the AK cannot be blocked but do not > recall him saying that Crucio or Imperius cannot be blocked. Do we > know whether there are any other spells, beside the 3 Unforgiveables, > that cannot be blocked? There is no such thing as a direct canon statement of the reason they are unforgivable. My theory spawned out of the comment that AK is umblockable and that they are taught to resist the Imperio (not block it). It makes sense, anyway, since we are told that unforgivable are just a sub-class of prohibited curses. That would mean that the prohibited are, in general, "pretty immoral", and that the three most feared/hated are the umblockable or "unforgivable". And no, we don't know of any other spell that is unblockable. We do know, however, several that *can* be blocked (like the jelly-leg curse, IIRC). > Some other explanations have been proposed for why the Unforgiveables > are unforgiveable. Some say, because they accomplish pretty immoral > (your phrase) effects, but I disagree, because there are a lot of > spells that accomplishment pretty immoral effects. As I've already said, I don't think that the apparent morality of the spell makes it unforgivable (a spell is just a weapon; it's got no intrinsic morality, just a dangerous level, like a gun or a sword). If someone used the AK to kill a charging, froathing at the mouth dragon, I don't think no-one would complain (allowing to the supposition that there *was* someone to complain, since dragons are basicly inmune to magic ;-) ). > All the other explanations hypothesise information not given in > canon, such as, the 3 Unforgiveables damage the recipient's soul > not just hiser body. I don't think that would work. I agree that AK possibly damages the soul (although they seemed pretty complete when pouring out of Voldemort's wand) when it wrenches them out of their bodies, and Crucio could, maybe, damage it too (although the best pain curses shouldn't damage at all, but keep the subject perfectly sane while yet in increadible pain), but I can't buy that Imperio damages the soul: it looks more like a drug to me ("look at the pretty colours", Harry was thinking -almost- when subjected to it in Moody's class), one that makes you feel so good that you'll do anything to keep it going. > Or casting an Unforgiveable requires summing up a level of hate and > arrogance (or some other set of Bad feelings) in oneself; no wizard, > no matter how magically powerful, can cast an Unforgiveable unless > heesh has this internal Badness. I hope not, since that would mean that Moody and all other Aurors are bad, since they could use them. No, I'm not buying that one. > Or the one I sort like, that casting an Unforgiveable leaves a > residue of Badness in the caster, so that a previously okay person > can become as evil as Voldemort by repeatedly casting Unforgiveables. I don't like this one either, since it put's morality outside the realm of consciousness: by allowing people to "become bad" by using a spell, you're introducing an external element to morality. I prefer that the goodness or badness of a person is dictated only by it's inner self. In fact, the most simple explanation is that unforgivable curses are those curses that earn you a life-sentence in Azkaban when used against a fellow human (no pardon -or forgiveness- possible) (note that you can use them freely against other beings, including giants, mermaids, elves, centaurs...). What curses are unforgivable would then change with time, sometimes being more than three, sometimes being just one or two. I still prefer my unblockable theory, though. ------OT warning------ Finally, Amy Z "lupinesque" said: > And as long as I'm making OT comments about other writers' > memory incidents, if you don't like Total Recall, Grey Wolf [and it > was horrifically bloody], read the original, by the great Philip K. > Dick. It's a story called "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale." > > Amy Z I didn't like the film because it looked "plastic" and unreal to me (I prefer secial effects to be better done). I don't mind the blood (after all, I *am* a wolf). It was just too Hollywood-like for my tastes. Ironside is great, though (as in Starship Troopers, which I DO like). I've been recommended Philip K. Dick several times, but I'm reluctant (too *hard* for my tastes, I believe, like in Blade Runner). ------End of OT------- Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who's looking forward to chatting with Cat this Sunday, and maybe having Nuria along so he can practise his Spanish From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat May 4 18:02:04 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 18:02:04 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths / Sacrificing Character to Cleverness In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38464 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lupinesque" wrote: > >I also can't just discard my knowledge of the real world as > irrelevant > >to my reading of the books. Fantasy and science fiction writers do > >sometimes deliberately construct totally alien societies where > nothing > >that we know applies, and readers must put aside all their human > >preconceptions in order to immerse themselves in the story. But I > >don't think JKR intended that any more than she intended for us to > >condemn Dumbledore. > > Marina, I've been catching up with this entire thread, and your > patient determination has been touching. I agree with you, and I > would add this: we cannot set aside our own morality as a lens > through which to read without sacrificing the opportunity to learn > about that morality, have it challenged, etc.--in short, without > losing one of the main benefits of reading a work of fiction that has > a moral intent. Thank you. I hope I haven't been coming across as a crank on the subject. I'm a big fan of Dumbledore most of the time; I think he does great both as a Headmaster for Hogwarts and as a guide/mentor figure for Harry. And I'm well aware that I'm assigning much more meaning and importance to that leaving feast scene than JKR intended. But I do firmly believe that the overall HP story arc would benefit from a more 3-dimensional exploration of Slytherin House and its relationship to the rest of the WW, and until that happens, I grab my complexity where I can. Snape is great, but setting him up as the token complex Slytherin just isn't enough for me. Anyway, I think I've blathered about this enough to merit an acronym, so I hereby declare my views to be S.E.N.T.I.M.E.N.T.A.L. C.R.A.P.: Slytherins Expect Nasty Treatment In Most Environments, Need Teaching About Loyaltry, Courage, Rationality And Patience. I try to excuse each one--CS's ending has a sad undercurrent > of true bitterness, as Harry really believes the Dursleys would > happily attend his funeral, and PA's is charged with the anger and > power of someone who finally has an adult backing him up--but I'm a > lot happier when I get to the end of GF, where things are allowed to > just end and not go "bang." I wouldn't say the other three, even PS, > are out of character for Harry in the way that Dumbledore's Cup Switch > is out of character for him, but PS's ending does leave the reader > with a final impression of Harry that is a bit out of whack with the > characteristics that have been most important through the preceding > pages. It's a little twist for humor's sake and twists too far for me > to find it all that funny. Yeah, I know what you mean. It didn't bother me much because by then I felt I knew enough about Harry to be sure that he'll behave decently no matter what he might say, but I got the same feeling you did, that JKR was reaching for a clever line. Then again, in my own writing experience, the last paragraph of a story is always the hardest one to write, so I'm willing to cut other authors a break on it. :-) > > P.S. I LOVED your Tangled Up in Floo filk, Marina, and look forward to > showing it to said dh, who also loves Dylan, just as soon as he reads > CS and can appreciate it. Thanks! Your Designated Hitter has great taste in music. :-) Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sat May 4 19:29:21 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 12:29:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thoughts on the Dementor's Kiss In-Reply-To: <002401c1f379$b0008120$4121b0d8@kerelsen> References: <002401c1f379$b0008120$4121b0d8@kerelsen> Message-ID: <8191663828.20020504122921@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38465 Saturday, May 04, 2002, 7:40:49 AM, Bernadette M. Crumb wrote: BMC> I've been rereading POA and it struck me when I was reading about BMC> what the Dementor's Kiss entails and wondered just WHY it was BMC> considered the worst possible punishment that could happen to BMC> anyone. My understanding (possibly misguided) has always been that the Dementor's Kiss totally annihilates the soul... In other words, *nothing* comes to the victim after the Kiss, not even "The Next Great Adventure"... He who a Dementor kisses can kiss sentience goodby... Forever. But I may be misiterpreting... -- Dave From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sat May 4 20:20:17 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 20:20:17 -0000 Subject: Effects of the past (was Neville); memory charms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38466 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lupinesque" wrote: > It's true that Harry is driven, and almost driven to a disastrous > action, by his Dementor-induced memory of his mother and more disquieting still, he is drawn to the Dementors - or at least his resistance is weakened - because they give him a chance to hear his parents again. I agree that some memories need to be put back again, having been taken out. I don't believe that JKR is advocating eidetic recall of a whole life's experiences (nor do I advocate it), or that policy should be based exclusively on history. On a related topic, the morality of memory charms, I believe that JKR is indicating they are not a good thing, not only because they wrongly bury the past. The majority of actual uses we have seen have been tendentious: Lockhart, Crouch Sr on Jorkins; or damaging: Jorkins again, Lockhart again (on himself), the World Cup groundsman. The last is particularly interesting, as it is endorsed by the MOM, but JKR is dissociating herself from it (IMO) by its effect on him. David From merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com Sat May 4 17:59:35 2002 From: merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com (sherlock_2040) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 17:59:35 -0000 Subject: Impossible timetable In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38467 Grey Wolf wrote: >Which means an excess of 32 hours every week-impossible except by time-turners I wonder, is there any thing in cannon that can hint at the staff using time-turners? Or at least some of the staff. Any thoughts anyone? Also, could it be possible that some of the teachers that only teach the subjects that turn up in the 3rd year *also* teach some other subjects? >Now, for the tricky part. Let's assume they ARE taught on Saturdays (although I have to scratch my original idea of a half-day Saturday). That would give Snape 96 hours (16*6), which means Snape would "just" have to find overtime to teach extra 16 hours each week, which could be done by teaching 3 extra hours each day, save Saturday when he would (only!) have to teach 2 extra hours Taken out of nightime, of course). In total, he would be teaching 18.67 hours a day, which means sleeping 5.33 hours a day (and probably most of the Sunday). *holds out her maths revision and asks for help* maths is my very very weak point - probably why I managed to make a mess of me theory. Could there be more than one subject teacher for some subjects at Hogwarts? After all, we only see lessons from Harry's point of view. Potions: Gryffindor/Slytherin - Prof Snape Hufflepuff/Ravenclaw - another potions teacher Herbology: Gryffindor/Hufflepuff - Prof Sprout Slytherin/Ravenclaw - another herbology teacher Do they have Transfiguration in single houses? In the books it seems they do, but they put Slytherin and Gryffindor together in the film, which just confuses matters... >No wonder he always has a bad humour! The miracle is that Lupin's absence don't make Snape to fall sick, too! never know, could have done, but he might have been ill when he had another year or set of houses to teach. Or maybe, he like Prof Sinistra, has an addiction to caffine *grin* (which would make them both fantastic techies! lol) Thanks for explaining my theory flaws :) (can you also help with helping me pick apart 'Of Mice and Men' which is boring me to death and I can't seem to revise it?) How many teaches do there seem to be at Hogwarts? Steph From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 4 23:17:10 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 23:17:10 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38468 Marina took a bow: > Thank you. I hope I haven't been coming across as a crank on >the subject. I hope I haven't either :-) Marina knows better than to insult Albus Dumbledore in front of me: >>>> I'm a big fan of Dumbledore most of the time; I think he does great both as a Headmaster for Hogwarts and as a guide/mentor figure for Harry Snape is great, but setting him up as the token complex Slytherin just isn't enough for me.<<<<< That I understand. Wanting the Slytherins to be more complex than they're shown to be is fine with me, but I wouldn't say Dumbledore's characterization is weak or misguided because it isn't conducive to a sentimental conception of Slytherin that JKR didn't put there. I'd call that S.L.O.P.P.Y.R.E.A.D.I.N.G. :-) (Slytherin-Lovers, Over Protecting Prideful Youngsters, Redefine Evil, Asserting Dumbledore Is No Good) Anyway, sorry to blather on, but I absolutely don't believe the text implies that Dumbledore broke the rules of the contest in any way whatever, sloppy writing or not. When an adult breaks or bends a rule in the Potterverse, it may be done wisely or foolishly, for good or for evil, but it's always explicit. Further, the number of points awarded to Gryffindor for their unprecedented heroism was reasonable considering the number of points they could have won at Quidditch if their Seeker hadn't been in the Hospital Wing. If we take into account that Harry lost the chance to win those points back through no fault of his own, we can arrive at an alternate reason why Slytherin's banners were left up. They still had a chance to win, because Dumbledore was hoping up to the very last moment that Slytherin would do the right thing. We learned in PoA and GoF what is expected of one who wins the day only because of another's misfortune. But do the Slytherins offer to share the glory? Evidently not--so, alas, they lose it all, including any points Dumbledore might have awarded them for good sportswizardship. Pippin who thinks a WW institutional bias against Slytherin is an interesting idea, but can't see any evidence of it at the Ministry or at Hogwarts. Slyths won the Cup six times in a row under Dumbledore. If anybody should complain, it's Hufflepuff. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sat May 4 23:18:54 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 23:18:54 -0000 Subject: House Elves and the Imperius Curse -- Second Attempt Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38469 Whoa! I tried to post this, and everything kind of went dark! Sorry if this turns up twice. ************************** You know, I've been thinking. It has been *ages* since anyone brought up everyone's favorite topic -- house elves! Erm, well, it has been ages if "ages" can be defined to mean "days". ;-) Wait, though. Don't go just yet. I really *have* been thinking. House elves aren't all that bad as a discussion topic, you know. There's so much to say, after all. There's the enslavement issue. There's talk of free will. There are mysteries, like why the poor Weasleys don't have a house elf. There's the issue of whether there's a difference between a goblin and a house elf. I started to wonder *why* exactly house elves are so subservient. I mean, how did they get that way? There aren't many (or any) other sentient creatures that are totally subservient, are there? I mean, goblins, werewolves, merpeople, ghosts, poltergeists -- none allow themselves to be completely dominated like house elves. Even Hedwig seems to have some control over whether she does or does not deliver a letter, based on her occasional bouts of irritation with Harry. So what is going on with house elves? They are "bound" to their families, but how and why? Well, they seem to be very happy, peculiarly happy, inexplicably happy, about doing something people normally don't wish to do -- working hard for no reason and for no pay. They take pride in working and do not betray their families -- even if something immoral is happening (as in Winky's refusal to reveal Crouch Jr.'s existence). Oddly, they are powerfully magical, yet are unwilling/unable to break their bond with the family. If the family gives the elf clothing, the elf is released. That makes me wonder. I wonder if house elves are serving under . . . geez, it's hard to even get the words out . . . under the Imperius Curse. Uh, oh. I recognize that sound. They're *laughing* at me again. Ah, I knew this would happen. Wait! Don't laugh -- wait -- hear me out! When Harry is placed under the Imperius Curse, he reports that "it was the most wonderful feeling," a "floating sensation as every thought and worry in his head was wiped gently away leaving nothing but a vague, untraceable happiness." In the graveyard, Harry experiences the Imperius Curse as "the sensation that his mind had been wiped of all thought." All of that seems consistent with the possibility that house elves are happy in their bondage because they are experiencing the ultimate, never-ending Imperius high. Also, the release of a house elf sounds as though a spell is being broken, doesn't it? I mean, why isn't a house elf released just by having the master say, "I grant you your freedom!" No, an apparently random act (giving the elf cloting) breaks the bond -- almost like some sort of magical spell. Then there's the little matter that Dobby was somehow able to try to assist Harry in CoS. I mean, Dobby is still bound to the Malfoys, yet he goes off on these little adventures to spare Harry. Kind of like the way Crouch Sr. traveled to Hogwarts while under the Imperius Curse to prevent Voldemort's return and spare Harry. Maybe Dobby was breaking through the Imperius bond, just like Crouch Sr. did? Then there is the weird coincidence that house elves and goblins are described as physically similar (short, long fingers). There is one main difference, though. House elves are subservient, but goblins are fierce and not to be trifled with. Could it be that house elves are goblins who have been Imperio'd? And exactly which families have house elves? Well, the Malfoys and the Crouches, but not the Weasleys. The Malfoys undoubtedly would have no trouble casting an Imperius Curse on an elf to obtain a servant. How about the Crouches? Well, it's hard to say. We know Crouch Sr. authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses in the war against Voldemort, so maybe he did a little unauthorized Imperius Curse on elf/goblin Winky. Or . . . perhaps Crouch Jr. performed the curse. We can be pretty sure Crouch Jr. will perform Unforgivable Curses and that he is quite proficient at casting the Imperius Curse. And the Weasleys? Many of us have wondered why they don't have a house elf if house elves don't have to be paid. Perhaps the reason is that Arthur Weasley is too honorable to use an Unforgivable Curse, even on an elf. Ah, that Arthur Weasley is a saint, don't you think? ;-) Cindy (wondering how to explain the existence of house elves at Hogwarts, and wondering if that Albus Dumbledore cast a few Imperius Curses of his own) From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat May 4 23:58:04 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 04 May 2002 23:58:04 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38470 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Anyway, sorry to blather on, but I absolutely don't believe the text > implies that Dumbledore broke the rules of the contest in any > way whatever, sloppy writing or not. Neither do I. As far as I'm concerned, the points awarded to HRH and Neville were totally earned (in fact, I would've been just fine with Neville getting a few more), and Gryffindor House deserved to win the Cup. None of the criticisms I've made about Dumbledore's actions have anything to do with him breaking the rules of the contest. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From Schlobin at aol.com Sun May 5 03:31:47 2002 From: Schlobin at aol.com (Schlobin at aol.com) Date: Sat, 4 May 2002 23:31:47 EDT Subject: (no subject) Message-ID: <3f.af96968.2a0601a3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38471 Harry Potter and the Quest for the Unfinished Volume May 5, 2002 By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK After turning out Harry Potter books at a rate of one a year, J.K. Rowling has missed the deadline for the fifth installment - a momentous event for her fans and her publishers. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/05/books/05HARR.html?ex=1021569069&ei=1& en=a79997ed490987b6 With quotes from Heidi and Steve no less "In response to an unusually intelligent question about whether the sudden resurgence of the fantasy genre, with the wizardry and witchcraft, represents a growing interest in pagan spiritual traditions, Ian McKellen (who plays Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings) replied: 'I certainly hope so. The great religions have destroyed something essential about humanity, which is the fact that we belong to the earth. I wish I knew more about pagan traditions, because I suspect I would like to sign up.'" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun May 5 03:59:17 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 03:59:17 -0000 Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38472 Dicentra said: >>>'d like to propose the following: good and evil are based on the relationship between weak and strong. If, like Voldemort, you believe that the strong should overpower the weak when it suits them, that's evil. If you believe that the strong should assist the weak, that's good. In other words, predation is evil, nurturing is good.<< Eloise responded: >>>And this is where Pippin, you and I agree, I think. Moral virtue can be measured by whether we recognize the rights of others. You simply take it a step further: recognition of rights is futile if it doesn't lead to action.<<< Dicentra reiterated: >>>I'm afraid that I'm not in agreement. First, talking in terms of "rights" is misleading, inaccurate, and inadequate. "Rights," properly used, is a term used to describe the relationship between governments and the governed. A government grants rights to individuals; these rights draw a line between the government and the individual that government is not allowed to cross.<<<< So, when the Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed *by their Creator* with certain inalienable rights, that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..." it's being misleading and inaccurate? Er....I prefer the term "revolutionary". :-) The dictionary says a right is "something due to a person by law, tradition or nature." That's how I shall use it. If my rights exist only because they're referred to on a piece of paper, the same could be said of my marriage. Or my soul. Or my God. Rights are not a bloodless concept. I did not, however, say that rights are the ultimate good (and you didn't say that I did.) I don't believe that we can, as humans, approach the Ultimate Good. Rowling does not attempt to symbolize it for us in the Potterverse, and this is, I think, why we are having so much trouble grappling with the question. This does not mean, I hasten to say, that I don't believe an ultimate good exists, either here or in the Potterverse. Yet it is beyond our grasp, almost beyond our imagination, though perhaps we come closest to it when we give of ourselves. But our ability to give ourselves is sorely limited. It's tough to love our neighbors, it's harder to love our enemies, in the Potterverse, as we see time and again, it's almost impossible to love the stranger. Love is too narrow to embody goodness for me, at least as we experience it in the Potterverse. Crouch loved his wife, and she loved her son, yet that relationship led them to do evil, because they didn't consider anyone but themselves. That's where I see "rights" coming in to the Potterverse, because, to me, "rights" defines the relationship between ourselves and the stranger, and Harry is the ultimate stranger. What is it that allows Harry to give to others beyond his capacity to love? Lily gave her life for Harry because she loved him, but does Harry love Pettigrew? I don't think so, but he spares him. Pettigrew's life has no value to Harry, as he says, but his right to live does. Harry does not want to see Remus and Sirius become violators of that right. Dicentra might say that he doesn't want them to become predators. The trouble I see with that is that they are predators already--in the most literal sense, in fact. Sirius eats rats, Werewolf!Remus will prey on humans if he can. What is the difference between killing a man and a rat, morally, unless we say that there is some intrinsic value to a human being--some right to live? Dicentra says: No one in the Potterverse upholds someone's right to have unpopular or evil ideas and counts it as courage or morality. (This theme does, however, show up frequently in American television.) I don't see it as the issue JKR is addressing. Dumbledore:" --without Pettigrew, alive or dead, we have no chance of overturning Sirius's sentence." *"But you believe us."* "Yes, I do," said Dumbledore quietly. "But I have no power to make other men see the truth, or to overrule the Minister of Magic." Dumbledore, as McGonagall pointed out way back at the beginning of Book One, does in fact have such power, or would if he chose to use it. He's too noble: that is to say, he doesn't use it because he has "a highly moral character." (dictionary definition of noble) Then in GoF, when Dumbledore has failed to convince Fudge that he should contact the giants: "You must act as you see fit. And I--I shall act as I see fit." Dumbledore allows Fudge liberty of conscience, even though he believes Fudge is dangerously wrong. Pippin From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sun May 5 05:02:56 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 05:02:56 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?The_Rock_We=92re_Robbin=92_(filk)?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38473 The Rock We're Robbin' (from PS/SS) (To the tune of Rockin' Robin) Hear the original at: http://www.buffnet.net/~ambrosia/page2.htm Dedicated to Mariner THE SCENE: Diagon Alley, in front of Gringotts. Enter PROFESSOR QUIRRELL and (LORD VOLDEMORT) singing "back"up. QUIRRELL (snapping his fingers) Riddily Riddily T, Riddily Riddily T Riddily Riddily T, Riddily Riddily T Riddily Riddily T, Riddily Riddily T Riddily Riddily T, Riddily Riddily T (Sweet, sweet, sweet, sweet) Such riches they're keepin' at Gringotts Measureless treasures and precious ingots But of all the gems that they have on loan None's more priceless than the Sorcerer's Stone The rock we're robbin' (sweet, sweet, sweet) Rock, rock, we're robbin (treat, treat, treat) That rock we're robbin', and the goblins will be shocked tonight! We're sneakin past' Griphook to Seven-One-Three But the vault we're assaultin' we find empty Seems Albus D. and Nicky F. Have precautions made that are anti-theft Our rock they're lobbin' (cheat, cheat, cheat) Rock, rock, they're lobbin' (cheat, cheat, cheat) Our rock they're lobbin', so our job is to unlock despite. (Segue to Hogwarts, in the DADA's office) I've got the students thinkin' that I'm just a joke All garlanded with garlic for vampiric folk But pretty soon the Hogwarts crew will wonder why They were bamboozled so by that stutter-guy Despite the best efforts of the faculty We bet Potter makes it through the obsta-clee That kid will be makin' his last stand `Cause at the mirror Erised we'll demand That rock we're robbin' (beat, beat, beat) Rock, rock, we're robbin (eat, death eat) That rock we're robbin', so the Dark Lord wins eternal life! (oh yeah!) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From Edblanning at aol.com Sun May 5 06:54:25 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 02:54:25 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thoughts on the Dementor's Kiss Message-ID: <99.25fb4caa.2a063121@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38474 Dave: > Saturday, May 04, 2002, 7:40:49 AM, Bernadette M. Crumb wrote: > > BMC> I've been rereading POA and it struck me when I was reading about > BMC> what the Dementor's Kiss entails and wondered just WHY it was > BMC> considered the worst possible punishment that could happen to > BMC> anyone. > > My understanding (possibly misguided) has always been that the > Dementor's Kiss totally annihilates the soul... In other words, > *nothing* comes to the victim after the Kiss, not even "The Next > Great Adventure"... He who a Dementor kisses can kiss sentience > goodby... Forever. But I may be misiterpreting... > And another thought........What do they do with the still living *bodies* of the kissed? Bernadette's question is thought provoking. I suppose it hinges on whether the human soul can or cannot be destroyed. Her nightmare vision of the victim's soul living on inside the Dementor, is tantmount to the WW condemning someone to eternity in Hell.....which seems to be a little beyond the remit of any MoM, though I wouldn't put it past them to try. I think that Dave's interpretation may be the correct one. But again, it makes me ask questions. Dumbledore seems to believe in the survival of the soul after death, but I don't think we hear the idea anywhere else, do we? Presumably the WW has no concept of any judgement of the soul after death if they think it is worse to annihilate a soul than to let it take the consequences of its actions in an afterlife. But, as Bernadette asks, does the WW actually *know* what happens to the victim's oul? After all, presumably no-one's come back to tell them. Do they care? Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun May 5 07:49:37 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 07:49:37 -0000 Subject: Impossible timetable/Dementor's kiss In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38475 Steph/Sherlock/Merlyn wrote: > Grey Wolf wrote: > >Which means an excess of 32 hours every week-impossible except by > time-turners > > I wonder, is there any thing in cannon that can hint at the staff > using time-turners? Or at least some of the staff. Any thoughts > anyone? Also, could it be possible that some of the teachers that > only teach the subjects that turn up in the 3rd year *also* teach > some other subjects? > Thanks for explaining my theory flaws :) (can you also help with > helping me pick apart 'Of Mice and Men' which is boring me to death > and I can't seem to revise it?) It's been ages since I read "Of Mice and Men", and found it pretty boring, too. Never did see why we read that one and not any other book. You *could* take that question to OT, I suppose, but explaining me what "revise" is would probably be more difficult than doing it on your own. > How many teaches do there seem to be at Hogwarts? > > Steph Based on the GoF's sorting ceremony, 12: five at each side of Dumbledore plus Trelawney and Binns, who do not attend feasts. On a side not, my (translated) version of the books states Sinistra as a *female* teacher. Is a translated book which has more information considered canon? I've translated books from time to time, and I know we ted to be careful in the matter, but Sinistra's name sounds femenine in my language, so maybe they just jumped to the supposition in the first book without bodering to ask JKR. > But, as Bernadette asks, does the WW actually *know* what happens to > the victim's oul? After all, presumably no-one's come back to tell > them. Do they care? > > Eloise No-one come's back, but many, however, *stay* after death, so all wizards are acutely aware that, when the body dies, the soul can have an independent existance: that of a ghost. I imagine that it's not based on faith (as it happens with us RL muggles). Instead, as in most fantasy books, the knowledge of what "happens after" is based on facts in the Potterverse, to a point. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From katgirl at lava.net Sun May 5 06:26:54 2002 From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 06:26:54 -0000 Subject: Neville's role (Was: Re: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!)) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38476 Abigail: > And I think it's a foregone conclusion that, whatever makes Neville so > forgetfull, we will eventually see a reversal in his situation. There has to > be a payoff. I just don't equate becoming powerful with using that power > - just knowing that you could use it is enough. This is the kind of vibe > that people get from Lupin. In an entire book he never raises his voice, > never loses his temper except once at the shrieking shack and even then > he's trying to be reasonable by pointing out to Snape that he is letting a > schoolboy grudge decide a man's fate. And yet, he's a werewolf, he's a > highly qualified DADA teacher, and he just exudes power. Wouldn't that > be a neat twist? In our heart of hearts we're all wondering if Neville isn't > following in Peter's footsteps - JKR makes the allusion herself - wouldn't > it be great if he turned out to be the new Lupin? Indeed, this is an interesting connection between Marauder and current times, and since I firmly believe that Harry's days are mirroring James's, I have to now write a post on this. While some connections are easy to see, where does Neville fit in? I'm still trying to puzzle it out. Is he Pettigrew, is he Lupin, or is he someone else altogether? Neville fears Snape more than anything. Why is this? Other kids raised in the WW fear banshees, mummies, disembodied hands-but Neville, who has been raised in a very traditional family fears Snape. And fear of a person is something very significant. Most people believe this comes from Snape's cruelty to Neville. I think this goes deeper. Snape is bitter, unfair, cruel, and haunted by his past. Elkins: > Neville, on the other hand, I tend to read as a representation > of the opposing archetype: the prince renunciate, the abdicator or > the apostate. > And he's running away from it just as fast as he can. His > story, the coming of age story that accompanies Neville's type, > is one of renunciation, rather than of acceptance, of "coming > into ones own" by finding the strength to *reject* the legacy > and to forge instead a new destiny of ones own choosing. Neville is under a memory charm, and when it's broken, he might not embrace his lost past. Snape is haunted by his past, and Neville will (unless JKR plans to make him into some sort of *shudder* Super- Auror) not embrace his past. He's been pushed away from his past by whoever cast the charm. He'll either keep running from it or face and renounce it. (Provided he doesn't become a Super-Auror) It is this choice and what methods he uses to make this choice that will determine who he is. -Katherine From neilward at dircon.co.uk Sun May 5 10:35:21 2002 From: neilward at dircon.co.uk (flyingfordanglia) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 10:35:21 -0000 Subject: ADMIN: NYT article: ongoing thread on OT Chatter Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38477 Hi everyone, If anyone wishes to comment on the content of the New York Times article mentioned in an earier post, could they please join the ongoing thread on OT-Chatter rather than post here? http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPFGU-OTChatter For those who haven't seen the article, its main point was to explore what we're all doing to fill the time while we wait for Book 5. Thanks for your cooperation. Neil, for the Moderators __________________ Flying Ford Anglia "Harry couldn't see how eight people, six large trunks, two owls, and a rat were going to fit into one small Ford Anglia. He had reckoned, of course, without the special features that Mr. Weasley had added." (Chamber of Secrets) From Edblanning at aol.com Sun May 5 10:53:02 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 06:53:02 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Impossible timetable/Dementor's kiss Message-ID: <11e.102cf3ac.2a06690e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38478 IGrey Wolf quotes me: > > But, as Bernadette asks, does the WW actually *know* what happens to > > the victim's soul? After all, presumably no-one's come back to tell > > them. Do they care? > > > > Eloise > > No-one come's back, but many, however, *stay* after death, so all > wizards are acutely aware that, when the body dies, the soul can have > an independent existance: that of a ghost. I imagine that it's not > based on faith (as it happens with us RL muggles). Instead, as in most > fantasy books, the knowledge of what "happens after" is based on facts > in the Potterverse, to a point. > > Hope that helps, > Not really, in that I was referring about the *victim's* soul. I'm not aware that any of the ghosts we encounter has been kissed by a Dementor in an earlier existence. But I take your point, in that the existence of ghosts in the Potterverse does imply that one can exist without a body. It seems pretty unequivocal that the ghosts we encounter do have souls; they're people who happen to be dead, not mere shadows, or echoes. But no-one else other than Dumbledore (IIRC) has talked of the 'next great adventure' (I've always wondered if she got that from Peter Pan: '...to die will be an awfully big adventure'.), so we're not sure what they think happens to the soul when one dies properly, as it were. The only other hints also come from Dumbledore: 'You think the dead we loved ever truly leave us?.........Your father is alive in you Harry...................so you did see your father last night Harry, you found him inside yourself.' I'm not sure that helps, at all! Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Sun May 5 13:19:48 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 13:19:48 -0000 Subject: Impossible Timetable Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38479 In my re-reading of SS/PS p 133 of the American paperback Harry describes a bit of his schedule. Astronomy happens every Wednesday night, Herbology is only 3 days/week. In PoA, p 315 of the American hardcover they show Hermione's schedule for exams: 9 o'clock Arithmancy, 9 o'clock Transfiguration, Lunch, 1 o'clock Charms, 1 o'clock Ancient Runes. Not all the classes meet every day. It is also possible that other years or houses start earlier than 9:00. We also know that in SS, HRH had Friday afternoons off after Potions (Hagrid invited Harry for tea to see how his first week went). On page 139 of the the above SS, Harry describes how they "climbed out of the dungeon an hour later" suggesting that their class was an hour long. My best educated guess is that classes run for close to an hour, exams scheduled for close to 2 hour slots (probably leaving 10 minutes or so between classes to get back and forth). With a schedule like this for the students, teachers could teach 5 classes/day and still have "free time" for prep work, etc. I was a teacher and taught 6 classes daily between 8-3. Considering that the same subject matter is being taught to each year from each house (all the first years learning the same material, all the 5th years learning the same material), this isn't such an impossible timetable. Gretchen From kerelsen at quik.com Sun May 5 15:10:11 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 11:10:11 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Thoughts on the Dementor's Kiss References: <99.25fb4caa.2a063121@aol.com> Message-ID: <001701c1f446$f4861300$9e21b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 38480 ----- Original Message ----- From: SNIP > I think that Dave's interpretation may be the correct one. But again, it > makes me ask questions. Dumbledore seems to believe in the survival of the > soul after death, but I don't think we hear the idea anywhere else, do we? > Presumably the WW has no concept of any judgement of the soul after death if > they think it is worse to annihilate a soul than to let it take the > consequences of its actions in an afterlife. Well, I think we can say that there is one piece of evidence of sentience after death in the WW. Look at the ghosts. Nearly-Headless Nick certainly isn't just a repetitive energy waveform repeating the same actions over and over again in a limited area. He's personality, thought and initiative, just differently corporeal than he was when alive. He's got feelings that can be hurt and a sense of humor and a sense of pride. He's still very human despite his corporeally-challenged state. In regards to where the souls of those who don't become ghosts go, well we don't know anything about that from canon. But I do feel that we can postulate, based on the types of ghosts we find at Hogwarts, that there is some kind of afterlife where sentience continues. In regards to the "final judgement" sort of things, no, we have nothing in canon as far as I can find that points to any belief in anything like that. > But, as Bernadette asks, does the WW actually *know* what happens to the > victim's oul? After all, presumably no-one's come back to tell them. Do they > care? I am very uncomfortable with the idea that they might know what happens and have chosen to do it anyway (which makes the WW an even more ruthless society than we've postulated it might be--the Livian Rome connection), but I'm also uncomfortable with the idea that they've chosen a method of social/judicial punishment where they don't actually know the full effects of the process, having the possibly mistaken assumption that the soul is destroyed, when it may not be. The whole issue of the Dementor's Kiss and the way it is administered (in the bureaucratic definition and the physical definition of the word) points out a lot of controversial issues about justice, crime and punishment in the WW. Unfortunately, I don't have time to address any of those right now... (aren't you glad! *grin*) 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 mike at aberforthsgoat.net Sun May 5 15:52:19 2002 From: mike at aberforthsgoat.net (Aberforth's Goat) Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 17:52:19 +0200 Subject: What if she got run over by a truck? References: Message-ID: <000b01c1f44c$d82acce0$0200a8c0@shasta> No: HPFGUIDX 38481 You know, that article I read this morning - the one you can talk about to your heart's content over on OT Chat - really got me thinking. *What if JKR got run over by a truck?* In fact, what if her house burned down while she was getting run over by said truck, and every last HP-related document were lost forever and ever and ever? [Of course, this scenario isn't just undesirable (after all, Jo Rowling is one terrific homo sapiens), it's literally impossible, since where she lives they don't have trucks. (They do have things called "lorries," but I've only a vague concept about what those people do with the word "truck"; and you obviously can't be run over by a concept, let alone a vague one.) That notwithstanding, let's just suppose the impossible (and personally undesirable) should happen.] The more I ponder, the more I think it might be a good idea. To begin with - and we're starting with the obvious stuff! - if she goes and finishes the thing, she's bound to disappoint us. There's no way she's going to finish this without selling a few shippers down the river. Or if it turns out that Gryffindors really can go bad and Slytherins can repent, she'll have ruined the whole point of the sorting hat. But if it turns out that that they can't, she'll have ruined the whole point of being a human being. So why not leave the problem in the land where had cakes can be eternally eaten? And that's just the start. By finishing the series, Jo will rob us readers of the right - in fact, the narrative obligation - to choose our own adventure. There would be no more guessing, second guessing and thirty-eight-thousand-four-hundred-seventy-ninth guessing what she was going to do with the story. What would *you* rather read in the year 3003: a stunning, psychoanalytic literary theory conclusively proving that Hermione and Hedwig were destined for love - or yet another attempt at warming up some narrative leftovers? Further: by finishing the series, Jo will loose much of her power over our imaginations. I mean, it's all fine and well for her to satisfy our narrative lust - but once she has done so, we'll all chase off for our next fix and our excitement will gradually dwindle away into patronizing, if not contemptuous, familiarity. But suppose she never brought us to that climax we're all waiting for - suppose we readers should spend the rest of history in the throes of lectio interrupta? Irritating, yes - but it would place her in a position of permanent - and unforgettable - dominance. In essence, by letting Jo finish the series, we fans trading an undying myth for a good story. Wouldn't that be a shame? If you're as convinced as I am, feel free to sign the petition over at www.imaliterarymasochist.com. Baaaaaa! Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray, who didn't get to preach this morning and couldn't spend a whole week without saying *something* outrageous.) _______________________ "Of course, I'm not entirely sure he can read, so that may not have been bravery...." From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun May 5 17:11:25 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 17:11:25 -0000 Subject: Neville as Mirror Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38482 Elkins shows us Neville as a mirror of Harry's archetype. I am sorry to reference that wonderful post without quoting, but Yahoo is not co-operating with me today :-( Katherine suggests that Neville might be a mirror of a Marauder, but wonders: >>where does Neville fit in? I'm still trying to puzzle it out. Is he Pettigrew, is he Lupin, or is he someone else altogether?<< I would say Neville is a literary mirror of Harry himself. His function is to hold up a reflection, so that Harry, who is not terribly self-reflective, can see an image of himself. Neville is round like a child and wears bunny slippers. As the adult Marauders show what Harry may become when he grows up, Neville shows us a less mature vision of Harry. Both Harry and Neville lack confidence when faced with something new. When Neville goes first and manages to do it, it is both a goad and an example for Harry. Examples: the Sorting, the Boggart, asking a girl to the ball. Neville has similarities to all the Marauders. He is physically like Pettigrew, and might be tempted, as Pettigrew was, to do anything in order to become a kick-ass Wizard, except that he also has Lupin's humility and Sirius's protectiveness. As a mirror, Neville is both similar and opposite to Harry: Both have absent parents. Harry's parents are absent physically but present spiritually, Neville's exist physically but are absent spiritually. Harry knows almost nothing about his parents and refuses to ask, Neville knows all about his parents, and refuses to tell. Both have abusive uncles. Harry's uncle abuses him because he wants to squash the magic out of him, Neville's uncle abuses him to make the magic show itself. Neville feared he wasn't magical enough to come to Hogwarts, Harry fears he isn't magical enough to stay. Harry is skeptical, Neville is gullible. Harry is thin, Neville is round. Harry has a natural talent for flying and is most at home in the air, Neville has a talent for herbology which is rooted in earth. Harry is plagued by memories he can't understand, Neville is plagued by his forgetfullness. Harry suffers because students and teachers expect so much of him, Neville suffers because they expect so little. Both are willing to fight. Neville takes on Crabbe and Goyle by himself and offers to fight the Trio. Like Harry, Neville goes up against ridiculous odds, unlike Harry, he gets clobbered. Elkins worries that JKR plans to make Neville into kick-ass!Neville, and wonders where the Christian virtues are represented in the House system. I see them as represented in the Gryffindor ideal of chivalry, which originated as a code of behavior for Christian knights. Harry represents the noble as warrior, Neville as gentleman. By choosing Gryffindor, Harry is specifically rejecting amorality and power as a path to greatness. To be a Gryffindor is already to understand that there are more important things than being a kick-ass wizard. I do see renunciation of the warrior role ahead, but for Harry, not Neville. I think Harry will eventually choose to give up his magic, while mirror image Neville will choose to embrace his. Pippin From Edblanning at aol.com Sun May 5 17:38:43 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 13:38:43 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] What if she got run over by a truck? Message-ID: <89.178c68d2.2a06c823@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38483 Mike: > [Of course, this scenario isn't just undesirable (after all, Jo > Rowling is one terrific homo sapiens), it's literally impossible, > since where she lives they don't have trucks. (They do have > things called "lorries," but I've only a vague concept about what > those people do with the word "truck"; and you obviously can't be > run over by a concept, let alone a vague one.) That > notwithstanding, let's just suppose the impossible (and > personally undesirable) should happen.] > Actually, we do have trucks in the UK, even the kind you *can* get run over by, aside from the usage to have truck (dealings) with, or more usually no truck with someone or something. To be fair, I think *perhaps* we tend to use it more in relation to what I think you would term railroad wagons (as in what over here are known as the 'Troublesome Trucks' in the Thomas the Tank Engine series; just thought you'd like a bit of higher culture, there) than we do for motor vehicles, but we do use the term. Probably for something a bit smaller than a lorry, or for a pick-up. Your outrageous idea has a lot of merit! What will we do when we know all the answers? And much as I wish she would eventually publish her backstories etc, in a way that might be even worse! >Aberforth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike Gray, who didn't get to preach this >morning and couldn't spend a whole week without saying >*something* outrageous.) Eloise (who can't let up an opportunity to discuss the different ways we use this language of ours.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From landers at email.unc.edu Sun May 5 18:40:20 2002 From: landers at email.unc.edu (Betty) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 14:40:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What if she got run over by a truck? Message-ID: <3CD57C94.C5FE5891@email.unc.edu> No: HPFGUIDX 38484 Snip: Eloise Your outrageous idea has a lot of merit! What will we do when we know all the answers? And much as I wish she would eventually publish her backstories etc, in a way that might be even worse! *Na, these L.O.O.N.S'll never be satisfied. You always find questions to be asked and honestly some utterly rediculous theories have come out of this group from time to time, but I digress. You'll find things to talk about after the seventh book. Not every mystery can be solved, especially since you are good at finding little nits to pick and all that. (And I mean *you* toward the whole group. Theories after theories, questions after questions, nitpick after nitpick ... It's just what we do around here, though some are more prolific than others. By the way, I figured Mike had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he wrote that post. I found it rather amusing. (Grin) Betty From megalynn44 at hotmail.com Sun May 5 18:14:33 2002 From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (Meghan Stancil) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 14:14:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What if she got run over by a truck? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38485 >Your outrageous idea has a lot of merit! What will we do when we know all >the >answers? And much as I wish she would eventually publish her backstories >etc, >in a way that might be even worse! > > >Aberforth's Goat ~~~~~~~~~~~~ See my anxiety does not come from teh idea that one day the story will be over, it comes from the idea that it hasn't been finished. I didn't get involved in the debate about whether the books will become classics because to me it's obvious that they will. And the idea that outside forces (ie 9/11) might impact the books makes me extremely nervous, because I am afraid that will be a horribly negative impact to the book. These books will be read for years to come and shouldn't be altered for recent sensitivities that will eventually go away. Megs _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sun May 5 19:26:17 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 19:26:17 -0000 Subject: What if she got run over by a truck? In-Reply-To: <000b01c1f44c$d82acce0$0200a8c0@shasta> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38486 Mike wrote: > *What if JKR got run over by a truck?* > > In fact, what if her house burned down while she was getting run > over by said truck, and every last HP-related document were lost > forever and ever and ever? Oh, I think the series will be finished regardless of whether JKR gets run over by a truck and her house burns to the ground, destroying the only copies of her notes. Who would finish the series? The highest bidder, I fear. Man, it would be just awful. Some hack would be hired to finish the series, with an eye toward Big Box Office rather than fulfilling JKR's vision. Lots of things would explode. There would be a Hollywood happy ending. There would be an American Hogwarts student. Everyone would be physically attractive and have straight teeth. Ack! I'm off to drink to JKR's continued good health. AlwaysPreparedForTheWorst!Cindy From Zarleycat at aol.com Sun May 5 19:31:24 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 19:31:24 -0000 Subject: Thoughts on the Dementor's Kiss In-Reply-To: <002401c1f379$b0008120$4121b0d8@kerelsen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38487 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Bernadette M. Crumb" wrote: > > The Dementor appears to take the soul into itself, but is it > consumed and ceases to exist? Or, and this is what gave me > nightmares last night, does the awareness remain, but trapped > inside the Dementor along with all the other mad souls that had > been Kissed by that Dementor? And if it is an aware but > non-corporeal being, doesn't that mean that it must still suffer > the same effects of the Dementor's presences as it did while > inhabiting a living body, but with NO way to escape the horror? Yikes! Thanks for creeping me out with this thought. I'll be having nightmares about this whole idea. > > And what scares me even more than the whole concept described > above is the thought that perhaps the powers that be in the MoM > know EXACTLY what happens to the souls of the Kissed. I really > hope that they DON'T know; that they truly believe that it's a > much more merciful end than the victim would otherwise receive. > The idea that the people in power allow--nay, encourage--such a > horrific thing to happen, knowing just how bad it is for the > victim makes me very glad that I don't live within their > jurisdiction! > I suspect that at least those in very high positions of authority must have some idea of what happens to these souls. Maybe that's a naive belief that the people with the highest authority who can order the use of the most destructive weapons generally don't use those weapons, precisely because they know what destruction the weapons can do. I would also suspect that wise wizards with years of experienc and knowledge know a lot about these particular dark creatures. My only reason for believing this is Dumbledore's abhorence of the Dementors. He refuses to allow them on school grounds during PoA, he is horrified that Fudge allowed one in in GoF that promptly sucked out Barty Jr.'s soul, and, he warns Fudge that the Dementors must be removed from Azkaban, as they are guarding V's most ardent supporters and will join him at the drop of a hat. Where did the Dementors come from? How long have they been used at Azkaban? If, as Dumbledore believes, the Dementors will support V because he can offer them more than the MoM offers, were they supporting V during the first war? If so, how did the MoM get them to switch sides afterwards? Perhaps the offer was "You act as guards at Azkaban and we won't destroy you. We will also let you feed on the emotions of our prisoners, and slowly drive them crazy. That gives us the double assurance of knowing what you're up to, and having you do the dirty work of mentally torturing the bad guys." Ugh! What depressing thoughts on such a beautiful day. Marianne, who, depressed or not, really wants JKR to bring us to Azkaban From mike at aberforthsgoat.net Sun May 5 19:53:45 2002 From: mike at aberforthsgoat.net (Aberforth's Goat) Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 21:53:45 +0200 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What if she got run over by a truck? References: Message-ID: <007801c1f46e$91ec58d0$0200a8c0@shasta> No: HPFGUIDX 38488 Megs wrote, > See my anxiety does not come from teh idea that one day the story will be > over, it comes from the idea that it hasn't been finished. I agree entirely. But what I'm wondering about just now is whether that anxiety - which we all feel, I think - isn't something we ought to savor, rather than hope it'll be gone as soon as possible. It's a bit like a suspended chord, where you know that the fourth is supposed to be resolved up into a fifth or down into a third - but feel that the dissonance creates a sort of anxiety which has a beauty of it own. There was this poet called Rilke - he's dead now, though I don't think either a truck or a lorry or even a freight train had anything to do with it - who wrote something I'd never heard of till Amy asked me about it: You, sir, are so young - so before every beginning - and I would ask you, as best I can, dear sir, to have patience toward all that is unsolved in your heart and to try to love the questions themselves like closed living-rooms and like books written in a very foreign language. So why not take the next logical step of leaving the door closed permanently - and go on enjoying the mystery of it all? * * * * * Betty wrote, > *Na, these L.O.O.N.S'll never be satisfied. You always find questions > to be asked and honestly some utterly rediculous theories have come out > of this group from time to time, but I digress. You'll find things to > talk about after the seventh book. Not every mystery can be solved, > especially since you are good at finding little nits to pick and all > that. (And I mean *you* toward the whole group. Theories after > theories, questions after questions, nitpick after nitpick ... It's just > what we do around here, though some are more prolific than others. Hm. Hm. Hmmm. Come to think, maybe that's what my point was. Doesn't it *always* boil down to that? We think of a story as a circle that needs to be completed, as suspended chord that needs to be resolved. But perhaps for the circle never really closes. For every answer, a new question crops up - for every explanation, a new and more truculent Flint - for every sense of closure a deeper sense of mystery - for every moment in which you grasp the meaning, the realization that it has already escaped you. Is a book ever really "finished" - or do we just stop reading it? And if so, could it be that an unfinished book allows a more complete aesthetic experience than a finished one? > By the way, I figured Mike had his tongue firmly in his cheek when he > wrote that post. I found it rather amusing. (Grin) I expect so - though when I asked him, he examined his tongue carefully, made an incomprehensible goat noise and wandered off to swallow a tin can. 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 Sun May 5 21:55:34 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 17:55:34 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil Message-ID: <146.e0661ca.2a070456@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38489 Pippin: > > But our ability to give ourselves is sorely limited. It's tough to love > our neighbors, it's harder to love our enemies, in the Potterverse, > as we see time and again, it's almost impossible to love the > stranger. Love is too narrow to embody goodness for me, at > least as we experience it in the Potterverse. Crouch loved his > wife, and she loved her son, yet that relationship led them to do > evil, because they didn't consider anyone but themselves. That's > where I see "rights" coming in to the Potterverse, because, to > me, "rights" defines the relationship between ourselves and the > stranger, and Harry is the ultimate stranger. > > What is it that allows Harry to give to others beyond his capacity > to love? Lily gave her life for Harry because she loved him, but > does Harry love Pettigrew? I don't think so, but he spares him. > Pettigrew's life has no value to Harry, as he says, but his right to > live does. Harry does not want to see Remus and Sirius become > violators of that right. Dicentra might say that he doesn't want > them to become predators. The trouble I see with that is that they > are predators already--in the most literal sense, in fact. Sirius > eats rats, Werewolf!Remus will prey on humans if he can. What > is the difference between killing a man and a rat, morally, unless > we say that there is some intrinsic value to a human > being--some right to live? First of all, I'd just like to say what an excellent post I think this came from. Pippin has said eloquently many of the things I was fumbling towards yesterday. I've been mulling it over today and I just want to comment on the above paragraphs which I ruthlessly snipped. It seems to me that our language is sorely impoverished when it comes to the word 'love'. That one little word is made to stand for many different concepts. The Greeks, of course, had three words and I am not sure that even that was adequate. Coming from a faith where the word 'love' is bandied around a fair deal and is pretty well held up to be the highest good (God *is* love) what Pippin said and indeed, what I said in regard to Lily gave me cause to think. I wonder if we can, in fact unite these two concepts, rights and love? I think it has to be clear that in this context, love has nothing to do with nice, warm, fuzzy feelings. If love is to be the highest good, then what we are talking about is love which *is* prepared to be sacrificial, and not just sacrificial on behalf of those to whom we are emotionally attached. Does Harry love Pettigrew? No, he despises him, he hates him for what he has done to his parents. He spares him, not, I think even because he recognises his right to life, but out of love for his parents and for Lupin and Sirius (he doesn't think James would have wanted his best friends to become killers). Perhaps, as Pippin says, he doesn't want them to become violators of that right to life. He doesn't want them to diminish themselves, to become less human. But can sparing an enemy be an act of love? I think it can. Not warm, fuzzy love, but love of humankind (what does 'philanthropy' mean?). It is the ultimate act of recognising someone else's rights, of recognising a bond of common humanity. I think this is ultimately what respect for human rights (I am encouraged, note, by Pippin's spirited defence of the usage) involves: the recognition that, as Donne put it, 'No man is an island entire of itself'. Any wrong we do to another ultimately diminishes us. This is what I think lies behind the Christian commandment to love others as we love ourselves. It doesn't mean liking people, or only doing good to those who treat us well, but going out of the way to recognise our common bond of humanity. And I think all of us at some time or another recognise this, don't we? Look at the reponse to things like Band Aid, or to September 11th. Unfortunately it is often such major disasters that bring it home to us, but surely this is what our response is, isn't it, a recognition that we are intimitely connected with the strangers who are the victims of disaster through our common humanity? 'Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind. And therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls: it tolls for thee.' I think Pippin's emphasis on the relationship between ourselves and strangers is particularly telling. The WW does not cope with strangers well. Perhaps, well, probably, for many this is a hangover from the days of Voldemort's power. But it is interesting that it is precisely Salazar Slytherin, his heir, Voldemort and his followers who are the most anti-stranger (if we take Muggle to equal 'stranger'). Dumbledore, however, whom we know JKR means to embody goodness, is perhaps the most inclusive character in the series. He recognises the common bond. I'd like to go back to what Dicentra said: >I'd like to propose the following: good and evil are based on the >relationship between weak and strong. If, like Voldemort, you believe >that the strong should overpower the weak when it suits them, that's >evil. If you believe that the strong should assist the weak, that's >good. In other words, predation is evil, nurturing is good. This has come to mind today as well. I find it interesting that both the protection of the weak and the treatment of strangers are concepts that figure highly in OT morality and law, which makes me think that they are indeed closely linked: 'The Lord careth for the strangers; he defendeth the fatherless and widow: as for the way of the ungodly, he turneth it upside down.' (Ps 146, v.9) When the strong exploit the weak they are denying the bond, they imply that the weak are less than human, that they do not deserve the same privileges that the strong accord to themselves. Hasn't much of the worst evil that mankind has perpetrated involved precisely the deliberate de-humanisation of others? So what am I saying? I suppose I want to suggest that love, in the sense of the active embracing of our common bond with the rest of humanity, is the highest moral good and that it is manifested in our relationships with the weak and the stranger. Conversely lack of love is manifested in exploitation and predation. In the Potterverse, Dumbledore, in his own strange way, represents one and Voldemort the other. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Brwneil at aol.com Sun May 5 21:06:05 2002 From: Brwneil at aol.com (Brwneil at aol.com) Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 17:06:05 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] What if she got run over by a truck? Message-ID: <191.6963fb1.2a06f8bd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38490 In a message dated 5/5/2002 3:57:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mike at aberforthsgoat.net writes: > > > See my anxiety does not come from teh idea that one day the > story will be > > over, it comes from the idea that it hasn't been finished. > Before everyone throws rocks please hear me out. I want to see and read books 5, 6 and 7 as much as anyone else, but would it really be that awful if the series was never finished. We as readers all visualize characters and things that take place in a book differently. When that book is made into a movie, that personal visualization is taken from us. As an example lets take Hermione. Up until the movie we all had our own version of what she looked like. Now Hermione looks like Emma Watson whether we like it or not. We have all read books 1-4 and we know book 5 is coming out. We know the characters better than our neighbors. Until book seven is written we can imagine anything happening that we want and it could be true. Checkout the creative minds that write fanfic. Some have gone places where I would never go, but until the series is finished anything is possible. Any relationship is possible. Any character can live or die. Any situation is possible. Once book seven is published the door is shut on speculation. Therefore, as anxious as I am for books 5, 6 and 7 to be published, I dread the day the series comes to a close. Neil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Brwneil at aol.com Sun May 5 21:21:04 2002 From: Brwneil at aol.com (Brwneil at aol.com) Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 17:21:04 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] What if she got run over by a truck? Message-ID: <71.1eff01d5.2a06fc40@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38491 In a message dated 5/5/2002 3:21:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, megalynn44 at hotmail.com writes: > See my anxiety does not come from teh idea that one day the story will be > over, it comes from the idea that it hasn't been finished. I didn't get > involved in the debate about whether the books will become classics because > > to me it's obvious that they will. And the idea that outside forces (ie > 9/11) might impact the books makes me extremely nervous, because I am > afraid > that will be a horribly negative impact to the book. These books will be > read for years to come and shouldn't be altered for recent sensitivities > that will eventually go away. > > Megs > It not just sensitivities, but publishers and Warner Brothers that we must worry about. How much will they try to influence Rowlings? What if Rowlings' plans for the books were felt to be too intense for the younger audience? Will she be presured to keep everything at a PG level? Bottom line now is unfortunately the mighty dollar. Neil [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From kellybroughton at netscape.net Sun May 5 22:38:18 2002 From: kellybroughton at netscape.net (kellybroughton at netscape.net) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 18:38:18 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] (no subject) Message-ID: <30DD0497.7B360835.B13B89B9@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38492 You're gonna hafta cut and paste what the article says, bc I don't want to register just to read one article. -kel Schlobin at aol.com wrote: > >Harry Potter and the Quest for the Unfinished Volume > >May 5, 2002 > >By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK > > >After turning out Harry Potter books at a rate of one a >year, J.K. Rowling has missed the deadline for the fifth >installment - a momentous event for her fans and her >publishers. > >http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/05/books/05HARR.html?ex=1021569069&ei=1& >en=a79997ed490987b6 > >With quotes from Heidi and Steve no less > > > > > >"In response to an unusually intelligent question about whether the sudden >resurgence of the fantasy genre, with the wizardry and witchcraft, represents >a growing interest in pagan spiritual traditions, Ian McKellen (who plays >Gandalf in the Lord of the Rings) replied: > >'I certainly hope so. The great religions have destroyed something essential >about humanity, which is the fact that we belong to the earth. I wish I knew >more about pagan traditions, because I suspect I would like to sign up.'" > > >[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > -- __________________________________________________________________ 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 oppen at cnsinternet.com Mon May 6 00:02:50 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 5 May 2002 19:02:50 -0500 Subject: Soul Survival of Death, as seen by the WW Message-ID: <00ef01c1f491$5d5a0360$c1c71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 38493 Uh...of _course_ the Wizard World believes in the survival of the soul after the body's death! _How_ many ghosts have we met or had mentioned? I'm one of the hardest-barked skeptics on this subject you will _ever_ find, but meeting real un-live ghosts and having it proven to my satisfaction that they _are_ indeed ghosts would certainly change my mind in a hurry! From john at walton.vu Mon May 6 00:49:52 2002 From: john at walton.vu (John Walton) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 01:49:52 +0100 Subject: ADMIN: New York Times article/Quoting of articles In-Reply-To: <30DD0497.7B360835.B13B89B9@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38494 * * * * * Six shadowy forms (four lithe, feminine and beautiful, two with rippling muscles and six-pack abs) whip off their Invisibility Cloaks and surround the list, wands a-flexing... * * * * * The Magical Moderator Team would like to remind you that quotation in full of *any* news article is a breach of intellectual property and copyright laws. Instead, please send a URL link to HPFGU-Announcements (perhaps with a brief summary or quotation) -- *not* the main HPforGrownups list. Discussion, unless canon-based, should take place on OTChatter. Please follow these simple guidelines. It is illegal to quote articles in full, and we *really* don't want to be sued. *smile* We're sure you understand. For more information, email the Mods (mods at hpfgu.org.uk) and read our Humongous Bigfile, which all members are expected to read, at http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin Regards, --John, Moderator With Rock #47 ___________________________________________________ The HPforGrownups Magical Moderator Team mods at hpfgu.org.uk Homepage -- http://www.hpfgu.org.uk Admin Files -- http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin Main Group -- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/hpforgrownups ___________________________________________________ From nithya_rachel at hotmail.com Sun May 5 23:26:40 2002 From: nithya_rachel at hotmail.com (nithya_rachel) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 23:26:40 -0000 Subject: What if she got run over by a truck? In-Reply-To: <191.6963fb1.2a06f8bd@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38495 Neil Wrote: >Therefore, as anxious as I am for books 5, 6 and 7 to be published, I dread the day the series comes to a close< IMHO, I get the feeling that book 7 is by no means going to 'close' the series - it might end Harry's stay at Hogwarts, but I don't think it can conclusively end the debate on good and evil/ rights and liberty or any of those delicious things we like to get our teeth into. JKR has been steadily exposing us to more and more thought provoking issues with every book, presenting us with so many layers to delightfuly peel away...just think! by book 7, we ought to have enough to discuss and fight over till our kids can take over from us! ;-) If "to the well ordered mind, death is but the next great adventure..", can Book 7 be any less to the well established fan? Errol (a.k.a Rachel, who feels she has lurked long enough and gets more impatient for the next book with every debate she reads) From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sun May 5 22:50:00 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Sun, 05 May 2002 22:50:00 -0000 Subject: What if she got run over by a truck? In-Reply-To: <71.1eff01d5.2a06fc40@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38496 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Brwneil at a... wrote: > It not just sensitivities, but publishers and Warner Brothers that we must > worry about. How much will they try to influence Rowlings? What if > Rowlings' plans for the books were felt to be too intense for the younger > audience? Will she be presured to keep everything at a PG level? Bottom > line now is unfortunately the mighty dollar. I think JKR is in the position now where she can't be pushed around. Lots of publishers will be happy to take anything she writes, and Bloomsbury knows it very well. Back to the subject line - I don't think finished series will leave us without subjects for discussions and speculations. Take Sherlock Holmes as an example: it's been finished for a while now, but the Great Game is alive and well and there is always some new idea to discuss every year. Irene From catlady at wicca.net Mon May 6 03:05:17 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 03:05:17 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts Prep School? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38497 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "EtonBuffy" wrote: > Are there wizarding prep schools? If not, which I am guessing > there aren't as nothing has been talked about before, are all > wizarding children, whom don't come from muggle families, educated > at home? Is that why Mrs. Weasley doesn't have a job, because she > has been home schooling the children? Sorry I took so long to answer, I had to look up the references. Some are in the Hogwarts FAQ http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/faq/hogwarts.html (Find "Pre-Hogwarts Education"). I believe that there are school wizarding primary schools, run by witches, that charge tuition, as an alternative to home-schooling. I also believe that JKR said in an interview that there are no wizarding primary schools, but I can't find any quote closer than the following: http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript1.htm Q: How do students at Hogwarts get educated in Muggle subjects? Do they even need to know other things besides magic? JKR: They can choose to study Muggle subjects. In the third book, Hermione takes the class Muggles Studies, and that's where they learn about Muggles in school. (The search engine for JKR interviews is: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ ) From chetah27 at hotmail.com Mon May 6 02:42:14 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 02:42:14 -0000 Subject: What if she got run over by a truck? In-Reply-To: <007801c1f46e$91ec58d0$0200a8c0@shasta> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38498 ~Aberforth's Goat I have to answer that questions with another: is a story ever really finished, or does someone just stop telling it? For every movie or every book I have ever watched or read, when it got to the end I always sat there and wondered "What next?". The characters are created and developed, but then I think it's up to everyone's own imagination as to what happens to them afterwards. I don't expect Harry Potter to be any different, unless J.K. just suddenly decides to kill off every character. ~nithya_rachel I feel exactly the same. I don't think all of the loose ends can ever be tied up in a series, so I don't see how book 7 would demolish the flow of Harry Potter chatter. In fact, it could probably increase it. Once book 7 is out, all the restrictions would be off. People could reminisce over all of them and come up with many an unexplained theory, or they could look to the future of Harry Potter and Co. and do the same. From Edblanning at aol.com Mon May 6 10:34:28 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 06:34:28 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Soul Survival of Death, as seen by the WW Message-ID: <104.1520105c.2a07b634@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38499 In a message dated 06/05/02 01:05:05 GMT Daylight Time, oppen at cnsinternet.com writes: > > Uh...of _course_ the Wizard World believes in the survival of the soul after > the body's death! _How_ many ghosts have we met or had mentioned? > > I'm one of the hardest-barked skeptics on this subject you will _ever_ find, > but meeting real un-live ghosts and having it proven to my satisfaction that > they _are_ indeed ghosts would certainly change my mind in a hurry! > I think I was trying to make a distinction between *ghosts*, who haven't left the earth, and souls that have fully made the transition to 'the next great adventure'. In answer to Bernadette, who took me up on this, I was quite specific (in my second post on this subect) in saying that Potterverse ghosts evidently *do* have souls. This does not imply, to me at least, that if they were properly laid to rest their souls would carry on existing. Might they not just die also, vanish, whatever? I'm not saying they *would*, just that the evidence of the ghosts themselves doesn't tell us. Returning to Eric, If I were to meeting a ghost in RL, which I think is unlikely as I don't seem to be the kind of person who is sensitive to such things (fortunately), I'm not sure it would prove anything. RL ghosts seem to be much more passive, more, as I said before, like shadows or echoes. They're usually not interactive. Mind you, things like that Enfield poltergeist really freak me out. (If you don't know about it, there's lots of stuff on the Web. In fact, if you go to the BBC site, easily accessible via Google, there are even audio recordings of it being interviewed. *Not* for those of a sensitive disposition, or for late night listening.) Eloise Who's glad it's morning over here, as she's not good with spooky stuff. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lupinesque at yahoo.com Mon May 6 11:02:40 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z) Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 04:02:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6) Message-ID: <20020506110240.10067.qmail@web20308.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38500 The question in Phil's book (_J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter Novels_) is: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Think about the individual's relationship to the law - Hogwart's rules, national wizarding laws, international wizarding laws - and then think about those who operate outside of these laws. Focus in particular on the characters of Sirius Black, Barty Crouch, Ludo Bagman, Arthur Weasley, the Weasley twins, Harry, Ron and Hermione, all of whom either bend the rules or break the law. Which rules or laws do they break? Does Rowling see their behavior as justified? Why or why not? How does she gauge whether a law or a rule is just or unjust? When are laws or rules susceptible to challenge? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That's rich material just as is , but in case you need more to chew on, I've added some glosses: (1) Other characters who belong on the above list are Dumbledore, Lupin, Ali Bashir, Malfoys Jr. and Sr., Dudley, Riddle/Voldemort and his followers, and Hagrid, all of whom also go up against laws, rules, or (in Dudley's case) parental wishes. Any thoughts on rulebreaking in the light of these characters? (2) A friend of mine commented that Harry's character gets more complex (and less virtuous) in PA in that he is now breaking a rule just because it inconveniences him (i.e., he goes into Hogsmeade), whereas in PS/SS and CS his rulebreaking had some higher purpose. Do you see changes in Harry's attitudes towards rules, and if so, what should we make of these changes? Any predictions about further developments? (3) On a couple of occasions, characters distinguish between lower-level and higher-level laws. Molly worries about the punishments that might await Fred and George once they leave the comparatively forgiving realm of Hogwarts--"If they carry on the way they're going, they'll end up in front of the Improper Use of Magic Office" (GF 5)--and Hermione questions whether their disregard for "silly school rule[s]" would extend to breaking the law (GF 29). Do you accept the distinction? Is it made consistently within the HP universe? Does it cause "slippery slope" problems? (4) Critics of HP often cite Harry's rulebreaking, Dumbledore's winking at it, etc., as a reason the books are unsuitable for children. Be honest, now: do you think the books send less-than-desirable messages about rules? About the rule of law? How *should* books deal with the phenomenon of rulebreaking, if at all? Corollary to 4: Hollywood code used to require that villains be punished before the film's close; Frank Capra had to fight to allow Mr. Potter to get away with grand larceny in _It's a Wonderful Life_. Will JKR be sending a bad message if Voldemort goes unpunished? (5) Thoreau wrote in "Civil Disobedience," "we should be men [sic ] first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right," and numerous practitioners of civil disobedience have made similar arguments, e.g., Jesus, Gandhi, and King. If it is true that one must sometimes contravene the law in order to do what is right, what then should guide us in determining what is right?: does HP provide any guidelines about how to make such determinations? Picking up on some of last week's discussion: is Rowling's moral universe relativistic, and if not, what are its "higher laws" to which people-made rules and laws must succumb? (6) What about the fact that the law and government of the WW are themselves shown to be corrupt, unjust, misguided, fallible, etc.? As Eloise just wrote (Message 38462), "The attitudes of, for example, Fudge or Malfoy are those of respected parts of the establishment," yet it is clear that Rowling does not respect their attitudes, nor are we intended to. What do you think we are to conclude about our own governments/laws from the examples given in HP? Take it away, Amy Z __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com From dorbandb at yahoo.com Mon May 6 13:25:55 2002 From: dorbandb at yahoo.com (dorbandb) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 13:25:55 -0000 Subject: Flamel was a wizard In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38501 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "mike_wiltse" wrote: > > It says here that he is his Partner. Alchamy is a Magic art. The > fact that Muggles have tried to use is meaningless. Alchemy can be practiced by wizard and muggle alike. Why is the muggle pursuit of alchemy meaningless? This is the very essence of the ambiguity. > > "And no wonder we couldn't find Flamel in that Study of Recent > Developments in Wizardry," said Ron. "He's not exactly recent if he's > six hundred and sixty-five, is he?" > > Implies he would be in it if he wasn't so old. I was my contention that that this explanation was a diversionary tactic by JKR. (See post # 37934 for more details). If you wish to take it at face value, that's OK with me. > > > He is 665 years old 650ish when Voldemort was in power. He probably > wasnt really up to fighting a Wizard in the prime of his power. Age means nothing to Flamel - he has the Stone. Flamel is not only *always* in his prime, but he has 600+ years of experience that should allow him to counter anything Grindelwald or Voldemort can conjure up, IMO > > And your question of what has he done for the WW! He is a Famous > Alchemist! You can think of him as the WW's version of a nerd or > even as an extremly old RICH geezer. Do you think every wizard was > ready to go out and attack Voldemort? "Every wizard" is not Flamel - Flamel is entirely unique in his power - and, by extension, his obligation to render assistance. Failure of *the* most powerful wizard to render assistance against the enemy is approaching unforgivable, IMO. I remain uncertain about Flamel's role in Potterverse. If anyone gets a look at Flamels Wizard card please post what it says. Thanks, Brian From Zarleycat at aol.com Mon May 6 13:48:04 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 13:48:04 -0000 Subject: Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6) In-Reply-To: <20020506110240.10067.qmail@web20308.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38502 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Amy Z wrote: Think > about the individual's relationship to the law - > Hogwart's rules, national wizarding laws, > international wizarding laws - and then think about > those who operate outside of these laws. > (1) Other characters who belong on the above list are > Dumbledore, Lupin, Ali Bashir, Malfoys Jr. and Sr., > Dudley, Riddle/Voldemort and his followers, and > Hagrid, all of whom also go up against laws, rules, or > (in Dudley's case) parental wishes. Any thoughts on > rulebreaking in the light of these characters? We'll probably be able to go for weeks on this topic. I think you might also add Snape to the above list. If, as Sirius told us, Snape arrived at Hogwarts knowing more curses than most seventh years, one could assume that Snape would have practiced them at some time before he got to Hogwarts, just to make sure he could do them properly. This would be an example of breaking the rules prohibiting under-age wizards from performing magic, would it not? > (3) On a couple of occasions, characters distinguish > between lower-level and higher-level laws. Molly > worries about the punishments that might await Fred > and George once they leave the comparatively forgiving > realm of Hogwarts--"If they carry on the way they're > going, they'll end up in front of the Improper Use of > Magic Office" (GF 5)--and Hermione questions whether > their disregard for "silly school rule[s]" would > extend to breaking the law (GF 29). Do you accept the > distinction? Is it made consistently within the HP > universe? Does it cause "slippery slope" problems? I don't think that breaking school rules automatically means that that makes people more prone to be lawbreakers later on in life. Fred and George are the biggest school rule-breakers who's activities we have witnessed. Yet, none of their activites seems to indicate to me that they will eventually end up with careers on the wrong side of the law. Sure, I'd hate to be their supervisor in some office at the MoM, but F&G are not the types to be happy and productive in that environment. Let them open their joke shop, and they'll be fine. The other students who had similar prank- and detention-laden careers at Hogwarts are MWPP, at least according to McGonagal in PoA. Yet, the most serious rule-breaking done by that generation was much more dangerous and advanced than anything we've seen George and Fred do. I'm talking about the Animagus transformation. The reason it was done was to help a friend. Does this mean that WPP were more likely to turn to a life of crime as adults? Of the three, Peter is the only one we know of who has committed heinous crimes as an adult. Did pulling pranks and becoming an Animagus lead him into this downward spiral? I don't think so. > (4) Critics of HP often cite Harry's rulebreaking, > Dumbledore's winking at it, etc., as a reason the > books are unsuitable for children. Be honest, now: > do you think the books send less-than-desirable > messages about rules? About the rule of law? How > *should* books deal with the phenomenon of > rulebreaking, if at all? > Corollary to 4: Hollywood code used to require > that villains be punished before the film's close; > Frank Capra had to fight to allow Mr. Potter to > get away with grand larceny in _It's a Wonderful > Life_. Will JKR be sending a bad message if Voldemort > goes unpunished? I think that if the books showed perfect people behaving perfectly, JKR would then be sending a completely false message about life in general. I also think that it does no harm to let children read books that reflect human nature. Yes, people do cheat, lie, steal, etc. They do break the rules. Sometimes these are minor infractions, like cutting up in class, and sometimes they are the highest laws that govern society, like murder. And, yes, sometimes the bad guys win, or, at least, go unpunished. Life ain't always fair. Do the books incite children to break rules? Not being a parent, I can't answer that. I don't know of any child who hasn't broken rules of some sort, whether or not they have read the Potter books. I do think the books show students receiving some sort of punishment for their school rule-breaking, in most cases. I would hope that most parent-child bonds are strong enough that whatever moral code the parent wants the child to follow is not so weak and ineffectual that reading several books will turn the child into some sort of budding deliquent. Marianne From abigailnus at yahoo.com Mon May 6 13:56:36 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 13:56:36 -0000 Subject: What if she got run over by a truck? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38503 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Oh, I think the series will be finished regardless of whether JKR > gets run over by a truck and her house burns to the ground, > destroying the only copies of her notes. > > Who would finish the series? > > The highest bidder, I fear. > > Man, it would be just awful. Some hack would be hired to finish the > series, with an eye toward Big Box Office rather than fulfilling > JKR's vision. OK, you do realise that the copyright for all four Harry Potter books, and consequently the characters and ideas contained within them are in the name of JK Rowling? And that on the event of her death that copyright would still be inviolable for at least another 50 years? Which means that anyone who puts out a book about Harry Potter, or containing characters, places or ideas from the books will get his ass sued off by the holder of the copyright - probably Jessica Rowling. Neither Rowling's agent, nor her publisher and certainly not WB have the right to put out Harry Potter *books*, and given the financial situation Rowling is in, there's no reason to imagine that her heirs could be pressured into doing anything they didn't want to do. Think about it, if Rowling's lawyers were as astoundingly stupid as to give WB the rights to put out books under the HP name don't you think we would have already seen 14 different HP "companion" books? Repeat after me, people, Warner Brothers does not own Harry Potter, Joanne Rowling does, and her heirs will own him on the event of her death. And finally, can I just say that I find the entire discussion a bit morbid? What would happen if JKR were to be run over by a truck is that her husband, her daughter and the rest of her family and friends would be heartbroken, for the rest of their lives. Abigail From gwynyth at drizzle.com Mon May 6 14:17:01 2002 From: gwynyth at drizzle.com (Jenett) Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 07:17:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What if she got run over by a truck? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38504 On Mon, 6 May 2002, abigailnus wrote: > Repeat after me, people, Warner Brothers does not own Harry Potter, > Joanne Rowling does, and her heirs will own him on the event of her death. Just wanted to comment, and this bit of text seemed the easiest place to hang it off of. It's reasonably common for authors to make specific statements in wills or other legal documents about how to handle their literary estates, and so on. They can certainly pass on the copyright and trademark holder status in that way. My father was a non-fiction author who had written about 30 books before he died in 1990. His will dealt with what would happen if he died (my mother would take over the copyrights, etc.) and what would happen if he and my mother were both killed at the same time (I forget what they decided, but I think it was that my older sister would take it over. Regardless, they made appropriate legal provisions.) And my father, while fairly prolific, wasn't writing high-profit stuff. (He was a specialist in Greek theatre history, though he wrote several books on other bits of theatre history.) Obviously, the person who has died can't prevent the person they've handed rights over to from selling the rights off, or allowing use of them, if their executor decides to. But in general, most literary executors try to go by stated preferences. > And finally, can I just say that I find the entire discussion a bit morbid? > What would happen if JKR were to be run over by a truck is that her husband, > her daughter and the rest of her family and friends would be heartbroken, > for the rest of their lives. I'd like to respectfully disagree. Distressed, yes. But I think that 'heartbroken for the rest of their lives' is a little much, and dismissive of those who have lost loved ones who do *not* consider themselves heartbroken. As I mentioned, my father died about ten years ago. I was 15. I certainly miss him a great deal, and I have a harder time with it at some points than at others. I wish he could have met my husband, for example. He never got to see me graduate from high school, never mind college. But I certainly don't consider myself heartbroken - I have a happy life, and a quite happy and emotionally functional heart. So, to all apparent purposes, does my mother. She hasn't shown any desire in having another romantic relationship, but she has plenty of good friends, an active social life, and lots of other forms of emotional interaction. There's a big difference for me between the concept of 'missing someone, but getting on with one's life and enjoying happiness' and being heartbroken, which has all sorts of connotations for me of someone who has *not* successfully made it through the grieving process, and who is still focusing on loss rather than looking for other happy things and going on with their life. I know that my father, for example, spent a great deal of his energy while he was dying (he had cancer, so his death wasn't sudden or unexpected) making sure that I continued to be able to do things that made me happy, and that he was very concerned that I continue to have a happy life, even if he couldn't be there for it directly. That has always seemed to me to be a very good way of doing things - personally, I'd hate it if I died, and my husband was never happy again. To pull this back to the HP novels, this is actually one of the reasons I love the books: it's quite rare to see a book deal with the aftereffects of loss of a parent in quite the same way. Harry obviously still misses his parents (as do Sirius, and Lupin, for that matter). But at the same time, all of them seem to be good models of *healthy* grieving and moving beyond grief, not wallowing in what might have been, but getting on with (eventually) what they can do now. Harry obviously wishes he could have known his parents better (witness the mirror of Erised, for example) but he also agrees that focusing on the past is not in his overall best interests. There's a big difference between occaisional wistfulness, and ongoing heartbreak. It's a lot easier to live with the first. And it's a lot easier to be *around* someone who has gotten to the occaisional wistfulness stage. -Jenett From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Mon May 6 14:51:03 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 14:51:03 -0000 Subject: Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38505 It seems to me that rulebreaking in the HP books is presented in three distinct categories. There's rulebreaking for a good cause (to thwart the bad guys or to help a friend in trouble); rulebreaking for fun; and rulebreaking for a bad cause (to harm somebody, or for personal gain at somebody else's expense). The first kind is presented as good and even heroic. The second is okay as long as it doesn't hurt anybody, but it's not heroic, and if you get caught you're supposed to take the punishment with good grace. The third is never okay. Harry's rulebreaking almost always falls into the first category; he's the hero, after all. When he goes after the Philosopher's Stone, or helps Sirius and Bugbeak escape, the actions are clearly presented as admirable. When he strays into the second category (the trip to Hogsmeade), he's censured, but not too harshly. He's lapsed out of his heroic behavior for a bit, but he hasn't gone over to join the bad guys or anything. Fred and George pretty much live in the second category. :-) That's okay for them, because they're not the heroes -- they're the comic relief good guys. Despite Molly's worries, I doubt either one of them is heading for a life of crime. Draco and the Slytherins engage in rulebreaking for bad reasons. So did Tom Riddle. So did Snape when he tried to go to the Shrieking Shack in order to get the Marauders into trouble. This is always presented as bad, and never ends well. We never see Harry and Co. break rules to harm someone -- they don't go around trying to get Draco in trouble or plotting to get Snape fired. Now that I think of it, the only example I can think of where one of the good guys engages in "type 3" rulebreaking is Sirius and his Prank. Even though I believe Sirius only meant for Snape to be frightened, not hurt or killed, he was still breaking rules in order to cause something bad to happen to another person. Hmmm... I'm actually not sure what JKRs opinion of the Prank is. Snape is furious about it, but his reaction is not presented sympathetically. Sirius is frankly unapologetic. Nobody else expresses an opinion, because there are more immediate important things going on, but I did get the definite feeling that Lupin does not approve. I'll be curious to see if, in future books, Sirius ever acknowledges that he was wrong. Or, failing that, if Lupin or Harry or Dumbledore ever express the opinion that Sirius was wrong. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From kpeirson at ntlworld.com Mon May 6 14:26:41 2002 From: kpeirson at ntlworld.com (Karen Peirson) Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 15:26:41 +0100 Subject: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) Message-ID: <006501c1f50a$414280c0$6658fe3e@karenslaptop> No: HPFGUIDX 38506 Abigail wrote: >No takers for my Neville-as-future-Lupin theory, I see? Too >bad, >I thought it was a cool idea. I loved the idea, it's just that I can never find the time to keep up to date with the postings enough to feel I can answer any of the points on a time scale that most of the rest of you seem to manage. The idea of Lupin having 'edge' (a potential to be dangerous) was interesting. Lupin (good teacher) and Sirius (Oooooh....) have always been high on my list of favourite characters, but different reasons, and now there is a added dimension to Lupin that adds to his attractiveness. Back to Neville: I really can't see Neville turning into Super!Neville (or Harry by another name); Vengeful,insane!Neville maybe, but hope not; wishywashywet!Neville - what's the change, and there must be (mustn't there?) But Lupin!Neville - yeah, I could really go for that. Rejects vengeance for justice and reason, and become a compassionate, intelligent, popular and powerful teacher (Isn't one of them supposed to become a teacher - though I always thought that was referring to Fleur). Well all those characteristics without the teacher bit is good enough for me too. The whole Neville back story possibilities are fascinating, as well as the Weasley's cousin thing. So the more the better on this, and such things Karen [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Mon May 6 15:39:47 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 15:39:47 -0000 Subject: Rulebreaking: Twilight in the Garden of Naughty and Nice In-Reply-To: <20020506110240.10067.qmail@web20308.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38507 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Amy Z wrote: > The question in Phil's book (_J.K. Rowling's Harry > Potter Novels_) is: > > Which rules or laws > do they break? Any that get in their way. > Does Rowling see their behavior as > justified? Sometimes > Why or why not? For the most part, rule-breaking is justified to stop Voldemort-- -- in the long run. MWPP broke the animagus law, unjustifiably at the time. But later, the act would help slow down Voldemort. > How does she gauge whether > a law or a rule is just or unjust? Actually, she doesn't, very much. She leaves it more or less to individual readers to decide for themselves. > When are laws or > rules susceptible to challenge? They all always are, in the Potterverse, IMHO. We don't clearly see the MoM's legitimacy as a legislative body. The WW seems to me an anarchy, with the MoM a vigilante group with some popular support. And a real law should have to be passed by Parliament, in England at least, and we don't see this. So, some actions are not in fact against English law. Murder, kidnap, forcible entry, and assault certainly are illegal and for the most part are perpetrated only by the bad guys, exept for the occasional altercation between students. ------- > Do > you see changes in Harry's attitudes towards rules, > and if so, what should we make of these changes? Any > predictions about further developments? > Harry was a stranger to the WW in the early books. Strangers tend to obey such rules as they know about a place. As one becomes more familiar with the culture, one knows better what will be tolerated. > (3) On a couple of occasions, characters distinguish > between lower-level and higher-level laws. >... Do you accept the > distinction? Is it made consistently within the HP > universe? The examples given are about the only times the "levels" come up, AFAICT. > Does it cause "slippery slope" problems? "Slippery slope" is certainly a problem, and a possibility. The inconsistant and corrupt MoM is a part of the problem. I personally have problems with the legitimacy of Wizard law. > (4) Critics of HP often cite Harry's rulebreaking, > Dumbledore's winking at it, etc., as a reason the > books are unsuitable for children. Be honest, now: > do you think the books send less-than-desirable > messages about rules? About the rule of law? How > *should* books deal with the phenomenon of > rulebreaking, if at all? Kids break rules. The rule-breaking has consequenses in the books. When Harry breaks the Hogsmeade rule, he is (rightly) repremanded by two or three people, incliding Snape. > Corollary to 4: Will JKR be sending a bad message if Voldemort > goes unpunished? The story is not about Voldemort, IMHO. Voldemort, who so far exibits no redeeming social value, is not really a character; he is a part of the setting. > > (5) If it is true that one must > sometimes contravene the law in order to do what is > right, what then should guide us in determining what > is right?: Only personal concience and popular concensus is left. And that should be enough. King and Ghandi won because even their advasaries recognized they were right. > (6) What about the fact that the law and government of > the WW are themselves shown to be corrupt, unjust, > misguided, fallible, etc.? What > do you think we are to conclude about our own > governments/laws from the examples given in HP? A government is at bottom a protection racket, even when a government can claim legitimacy by having the general concent of the governed. Most democratic governments leave room for "justifiable" breaking of its laws, knowing the law is imperfect. I suspect most Witchards in the WW would excuse the actions taken by our protagonist and his friends as justifiable; they would prefer the breaking of those rules to the reign of Voldemort. Tex From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon May 6 16:37:33 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 16:37:33 -0000 Subject: Justice, Wisdom, Trials, Harry, Dumbledore and Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38508 In case anyone missed it, Porphyria posted a truly marvelous essay drawing parallels between the story of Job and HP. It is really thought-provoking and outstanding! It is in the files section at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Essays/job.html Porphyria's essay is so good, in fact, that it is not easy to comment other than to proclaim, "Me too!" or "I wish I had thought of that!" or even "Why didn't I pay better attention in Sunday school when we covered this?" ;-) Still. There are a number of fine HP observations throughout Porphyria's essay, and I have a few questions related to it. So here we go. ********************************* Right up front, I have to acknowledge that I was quite intrigued by the idea of Snape as satan. I mean, it is practically a dream come true for me. :-) I was thinking, however, more of your standard Hollywood/Halloween satan caricature, not the historical view of satan that Porphyria describes so well: >"In her book An Adversary in Heaven Peggy L. Day explains that the >Hebrew word "satan" is best translated as "adversary" or "accuser" >and that this often has the strictly forensic sense of a >prosecuting attorney or the opponent in a legal case." All kidding aside, this really is Snape's role, or part of his role, throughout the HP books. Snape is acting, as Porphyria noted, in the role of public prosecutor as well as a loyal member of the divine counsel. Again and again, Snape accuses Harry of misconduct, allegedly in Snape's role as loyal servant of Dumbledore. But the parallel might not be perfect, because Snape's loyalty is far from perfect. In PoA, Snape openly questions Dumbledore's trust of Lupin, eventually disobeying Dumbledore's instruction that Lupin's werewolf status remain confidential. In GoF, Snape may have played a role in allowing a dementor in the castle, despite Dumbledore's express wishes. This may be an area in which the parallel between the satan of Job and Snape begins to break down just a bit. As Porphyria explains, "satan remains completely loyal and obedient to God" and "never exceeds [God's] instructions." But can the same be said for Snape? Does Snape exceed Dumbledore's directives out of malice or pursuit of his own agenda? Well, it appears so. Even if we attribute laudable motives to Snape's actions in revealing Lupin's condition, the fact remains that this was done in violation of Dumbledore's express directive. The satan of Job, of course, never exceeds the boundaries God establishes for satan's treatment of Job. Porphyria: >"The frequency with which Snape takes the role of prosecuting >attorney points up both his importance within the school and his >function within the text. His interactions with Harry often figure >as courtroom scenes, and his diction is filled with forensic >allusions." This is certainly true, and a very interesting observation that hadn't really occurred to me in exactly this way. But what exactly is the meaning of the malfeasance Snape is trying to establish? In CoS, it is perhaps an attempt to prove Harry is evil. In PoA, during "Snape's Grudge," it is that Harry has endangered himself by going to Hogsmeade. In CoS, Snape raises the possibility of expulsion as punishment for Harry's ill-fated flight to Hogwarts, purportedly for damaging the Willow. In GoF, it is that Harry has endangered himself by placing his name into the Goblet. So a question: If Snape is functioning as satan (specifically defined as the satan in the story of Job), what is the *purpose* of Snape's prosecutorial role? Surely the satan in Job was not acting to protect Job, although Snape occasionally appears to be motivated by a desire to protect Harry. Conversely, Snape's activities do not seem calculated to test Harry's loyalty or allegiance, which seems to be the mission of satan in the story of Job. What, then, is Snape hoping to accomplish, consistent with the idea that Snape fulfills the role of satan to some extent? Porphyria: >"Here we can also see how the satan has the duties a divine >prosecuting attorney; he states the opposing case and casts >aspersions on the hero, while God's argues for the defense." Yes, that makes sense. But if Snape fulfills the role of the satan, then who in HP fulfills God's role, the role of arguing for Harry's defense? Oddly, it often seems to be various Hogwarts teachers. Certainly Lupin fulfills that role in PoA, "Snape's Grudge." Lupin goes so far as to intentionally mislead Prosecutor Snape as Snape attempts to build a case against Harry. We see the same thing in GoF, where Moody intervenes on the staircase to prevent Harry from being discovered by Snape. McGonagall comes to Harry's defense in CoS: "Really, Severus, . . . There is no evidence at all that Potter has done anything wrong." Ironically, it seems that Dumbledore is almost neutral when Harry is being accused, which seems to suggest that Dumbledore's role is not God's role of arguing for the defense. (If anything, Dumbledore acts as a judge or impartial observer when Harry's name comes out of the Goblet: "Did you put your name into the Goblet of Fire, Harry?" And later: "Did you ask an older student to put it into the Goblet of Fire for you?" It is McGonagall who argues Harry's case most vigorously: "He could not have crossed the Age Line . . . . [A]s Professor Dumbledore believes that he did not persuade an older student to do it for him, I'm sure that should be good enough for everyone else." As we see teachers (McGonagall, in particular) rather than Dumbledore mount vigorous defenses of Harry, is it fair to say that the various teachers act in the role of God to Snape's satan? Further, if the various teachers seem to fulfill the role of God more completely than Dumbledore, then what role, if any, does Dumbledore play? Is he part of the composite of characters who fulfill a small part of the role of God to oppose Snape's satan, or is there another parallel that can be drawn? Porphyria: >"[L]et us examine a few details of the satan's role here. For >starters, he belongs to God's inner circle of servants, functioning >as something like a confidante and adviser. However malicious he >is, he remains completely loyal and obedient to God; >Although Snape antagonizes Harry, he is still one of Dumbledore's >most loyal adherents." Ah, my inner anti-Snape is intrigued. :-) Yes, it is true that Snape is frequently present at pivotal moments, as Porphyria points out. But he is curiously absent at other moments -- moments when one would expect Dumbledore's inner circle to be accounted for. Significantly, Snape is not present when Dumbledore makes his first important decision about Harry's future -- when Harry is left with the Dursleys. Snape is also inexplicably absent during all three of the tasks in GoF. In fact, Hagrid (who is not a fully qualified wizard) is selected to monitor the third task instead of Snape, despite Dumbledore's apparent concern about Harry's safety and the meaning of several mysterious events throughout the school year. Can Snape be more than a prowling nuisance if Dumbledore does not seek his counsel during Dumbledore's most difficult decisions? One final question about the parallel between Snape and the satan. I assume that the satan in the story of Job is the supreme adversary to God, that there is no entity more powerful than the satan other than God. I think it is clear in HP, however, that Snape is far from the most powerful wizard in the books. I assume Voldemort is more powerful, and it is beyond dispute that Snape is quite intimidated by Moody. Even Dumbledore is likely more powerful. So, Porphyria. Is there anything about the satan in Job or in other Biblical references that can explain some of Snape's vulnerabilities? Cindy From sandirs at hotmail.com Mon May 6 17:34:13 2002 From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 13:34:13 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hogwarts Prep School? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38509 Buffy asked, "Are there wizarding prep schools?" It seems to this Canadian/American product of neighborhood public schools that if Hogwarts is not a "prep" school it is certainly "private", in that one must be invited in. Also,it appears to be an elite school, based on repeated comments that Hogwarts is the best wizards' school in Britain, and perhaps Europe (altho' there is probably a bit of old school chauvinism there!) Sandi >> >Are there wizarding prep schools? If not, which I am guessing there >aren't as nothing has been talked about before, are all wizarding >children, whom don't come from muggle families, educated at home? Is >that why Mrs. Weasley doesn't have a job, because she has been home >schooling the children? > >Eton Buffy > > _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Mon May 6 15:57:36 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (Heidi Rugg) Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 11:57:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville/Harry/Mirror References: <006501c1f50a$414280c0$6658fe3e@karenslaptop> Message-ID: <004001c1f516$be5965e0$6401a8c0@barefoot> No: HPFGUIDX 38510 I do so enjoy this thread about Neville and where he is in terms of reflecting the past: Lupin? Pettigrew? Sirius? Other? Maybe even Snape? Pippin's idea of Neville being a sort of foil to Harry is equally intriguing! I am reminded of how Harry chose "Neville" as his name on the Knight Bus and wonder if that is, perhaps, illuminating on this theory as well! Pippin Writes: >>I do see renunciation of the warrior role ahead, but for Harry, not Neville. I think Harry will eventually choose to give up his magic, while mirror image Neville will choose to embrace his.<< This is an interesting twist that I have pondered in terms of Harry. The "gleam" in Dumbledore's eyes at the end of Book 4 has been a topic of much debate. I have wondered if there would be some magical way for Harry to rid himself of his magical powers and thereby rid Voldemort (who now shares his blood) of his powers as well. What worse punishment for a Dark Wizard than to live out the rest of his days as a Muggle? Harry's strength lies not primarily in his magical prowess -- he is strong, but not studious -- but in his friendships and his morality. He was unable to kill Sirius; he was unable to kill Pettigrew. He breaks rules all over the place, but his moral compass is quite fixed in many respects. But Neville's "place" cannot really be determined without finding Ron and Hermione's place in the scheme of things. If there is some reflection of the Marauder's in current times, then they must have a place as well. Heidi (er...newbie) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Mon May 6 20:58:24 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 20:58:24 -0000 Subject: Harry giving up powers? (WAS Re: Neville/Harry/Mirror) In-Reply-To: <004001c1f516$be5965e0$6401a8c0@barefoot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38511 Pippin Wrote: > > >>I do see renunciation of the warrior role ahead, > but for Harry, not Neville. I think Harry will eventually choose to > give up his magic, while mirror image Neville will choose to > embrace his.<< Heidi Rugg wrote: > This is an interesting twist that I have pondered in terms of Harry. The "gleam" in Dumbledore's eyes at the end of Book 4 has been a topic of much debate. I have wondered if there would be some magical way for Harry to rid himself of his magical powers and thereby rid Voldemort (who now shares his blood) of his powers as well. What worse punishment for a Dark Wizard than to live out the rest of his days as a Muggle? > Now me: I am one of the few (heck, maybe I'm the *only* one)who believes that Harry's Big Bangy secret is that he is a living embodiment of the philosopher's stone. (This is all based on an alchemical interpretation of the symbols that surround Harry; stag, phoenix, lion, serpent, color green, red, etc. I could go into great detail but I'll restrain myself :--) Not that he's necessarily immortal, but that he holds within his being the potential for eternal life if properly activated. Anyway, if I'm right, I think that Harry will be making the choice to renounce at least this part of his powers. I think this whole plot idea would really tie the series together; Harry would have grown to understand life & death to the point that he would choose to make the same decision (we assume) Flamel made in SS. I think I remember JKR saying somewhere (sorry can't remember citation) that you could sum up the theme of the series as facing up to death. And my theory would *really* make Harry the anti-Voldemort; he would choose to freely give up that which V. has spent his life seeking in terribly evil ways. Caroline From kpeirson at ntlworld.com Mon May 6 19:18:54 2002 From: kpeirson at ntlworld.com (Karen Peirson) Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 20:18:54 +0100 Subject: House cup colous switch / Flamel's card Message-ID: <009e01c1f532$dd8d9d20$6658fe3e@karenslaptop> No: HPFGUIDX 38512 OOPs sorry sent that without a subject, lets see if I can get it right this time. Marina wrote: >>>>>>Announcing the final standings before the feast and decorating the Hall in Gryffindor colours to begin with would not have been "tactfulbehind the scenes maneuvering" -- it would've been regular procedure. That's how it's done in all the other years. <<<< Pippin replied: >>>>Okay, now I am confused. So far, we've had four years. Year One: Dumbledore pulls his switcheroo Year Two: no leaving feast mentioned. There is a special feast where Ron and Harry's four hundred points secure the House Cup for Gryffindor. There is no mention of decorations or who was in the lead beforehand. Year Three: Gryffindor takes the lead by winning the Quidditch Cup. The hall is decorated in scarlet and gold. No mention of last minute points. Year Four: the hall is draped in black. No House Cup is awarded. The House Point totals are not given.<<<<< Maybe it was traditional for the hall is decorate in the colours of the current holders of the cup for the feast (i.e. in PS Slytherin from the previous year) until the new holders, that year's winners are announced. Surely the scene in the celluloid thing soon to be out on DVD (I've seen th clip on TV) is not the trio discovering Nicolas Flamel's wizarding card, but Harry discovering his name on Dumbledore's card as in the books? That leaves it still open to debate as to whether he is a wizard or muggle. Obviously a wet bank holiday and nothing better to do ... is there ever? Karen [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 6 21:30:48 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 21:30:48 -0000 Subject: Justice, Wisdom, etc/ Rules In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38513 Cindy said: > Snape is acting, as Porphyria noted, in > the role of public prosecutor as well as a loyal member of the > divine counsel. Again and again, Snape accuses Harry of misconduct, > allegedly in Snape's role as loyal servant of Dumbledore. > > But the parallel might not be perfect, because Snape's loyalty is far from perfect. In PoA, Snape openly questions Dumbledore's trust of Lupin, eventually disobeying Dumbledore's instruction that Lupin's werewolf status remain confidential. You know I'm going to jump on this one, right? ;-) Dumbledore's express instruction was given to Snape the student. There's nothing to suggest that it remained incumbent on Snape the Professor. Was the staff ordered to keep Lupin's secret or was it requested by Dumbledore or even by Lupin himself? We don't know. Also, in the book of Job, satan is not disloyal to God for questioning Job's loyalty to God, he's just doing his job, even though Job is in actuality more loyal to God than Lupin was to Dumbledore. Cindy: >In GoF, Snape may have > played a role in allowing a dementor in the castle, despite >Dumbledore's express wishes. Dumbledore's express wish to keep Dementors out of the castle didn't stop Macnair from going to fetch one at the end of PoA with Dumbledore's full knowledge and consent. Obviously Fudge has the authority to permit it. Let me put a question to lawyer Cindy: if the police have a warrant, can't they search my house with police dogs, whether I like it or not? May I lawfully compel my employees to interfere with them in the performance of their duties? Cindy asks: >>>> If Snape is functioning as satan (specifically defined as the satan in the story of Job), what is the *purpose* of Snape's prosecutorial role? Surely the satan in Job was not acting > to protect Job, although Snape occasionally appears to be motivated by a desire to protect Harry. Conversely, Snape's activities do not seem calculated to test Harry's loyalty or allegiance, which seems to be the mission of satan in the story of Job. > > What, then, is Snape hoping to accomplish, consistent with the idea that Snape fulfills the role of satan to some extent? > > > Yes, it is true that Snape is frequently present at pivotal moments, as Porphyria points out. But he is curiously absent at other moments -- moments when one would expect Dumbledore's inner circle to be accounted for. Significantly, Snape is not present when Dumbledore makes his first important decision about Harry's future --when Harry is left with the Dursleys. >Snape is also inexplicably absent during all three of the tasks in GoF.<<<<<<< McGonagall wasn't supposed to be at the Dursleys either, remember? Snape would have had plenty to do chasing down Death Eaters, even assuming he wasn't utterly devastated by the loss of his beloved Lily :-) Besides which: Snape as the prosecutor is needed only when Harry or somebody is presumed to have done something wrong. Whatever we may think of his preparations, Harry's execution of the tasks is exemplary, in fact he even gets extra points for moral fibre, and Baby Harry of course is quite innocent. I think Snape's main task in GoF was to keep an eye on Karkaroff. It seems that Moody took over watching out for Harry. One of my favorite scenes in GoF is the staircase episode in The Egg and the Eye, in which Snape finds himself on the receiving end of unfair suspicion for once. The fact that he defers to Moody though he's obviously aware that Harry is standing there argues that Moody had indeed taken over Snape's responsibility for The Boy Who Lived. Cindy asked : >>>> One final question about the parallel between Snape and the satan. I assume that the satan in the story of Job is the supreme adversary to God, that there is no entity more powerful than the satan other than God. <<<< The satan is man's adversary, not God's. The dualistic idea of an adversary to God influenced Jewish thought during the Persian exile and the foundation period of Christianity but was eventually rejected by Rabbinic Judaism. In Christianity, the satan was elevated (if that is the right word) into SupremeAdversary!Satan, a far mightier and more significant figure than the lowercase!satan who has no such grandeur. Job's satan has always reminded me more of Schlimazl, Yiddish folklore's threadbare, wandering personification of hard luck, than of Milton's magnificent general of the hosts of Hell. In the Hebrew Scripture, Man's trials on earth (another legal metaphor!) are often compared to the potter's wheel. Their purpose is to form man's character. I see this as part of Snape's function in trying Harry. For example, Snape's goading teaches Harry to keep his temper. His unfairness nudges Hermione out of her excessive deference to authority. I think if there is one moral absolute in the Potterverse, it is this: Thou shalt not harm an innocent Being. I believe all the good characters try to live up to this, even Snape. I don't believe Snape is *trying* to persecute Neville; it seems to me he is trying to teach him, as he says: "What do I have to do to make you understand?" There is no corresponding obligation to protect--that is what heroes are for. Pippin From porphyria at mindspring.com Mon May 6 22:10:19 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria at mindspring.com) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 18:10:19 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Justice, Wisdom, Snape, etc. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38514 Ah, Cindy has read my Job/HP essay, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Essays/job.html , and posted some interesting questions about it, which I shall attempt to answer below. First off, I want to thank Cindy and point out how much I appreciate her commentary. Cindy is, while far from a fan of Snape, a keen Snape observer, and I welcome her sharp eye. My essay argues that, since Harry's initial status of hero is unmerited and in question, he and the text need Snape's objections in order to have the chance to prove Harry worthy and deserving after all. In much the same way, I as a fervent defender of Snape need Cindy's constant objections to him in order to make my case heard. Catch that Cindy? I just made a favorable comparison between you and Snape. ;-) Oh, and while composing this, Pippin has come to my defense on some of the questions below. In order to make my opinions clear I'm just going to post this reply as I had originally written it, even if it overlaps some of what Pippin has already posted. And thank you too Pippin! I love your info about the Schlimazl and the Potter's Wheel (how appropriate!). That's so totally what I was after. ********************************* So, let's get on with it. << Right up front, I have to acknowledge that I was quite intrigued by the idea of Snape as satan. >> Knew that would catch your attention. ;-) Cindy recaps my argument... >"In her book An Adversary in Heaven Peggy L. Day explains that the >Hebrew word "satan" is best translated as "adversary" or "accuser" >and that this often has the strictly forensic sense of a >prosecuting attorney or the opponent in a legal case." and basically agrees with it: << All kidding aside, this really is Snape's role, or part of his role, throughout the HP books. Snape is acting, as Porphyria noted, in the role of public prosecutor as well as a loyal member of the divine counsel. Again and again, Snape accuses Harry of misconduct, allegedly in Snape's role as loyal servant of Dumbledore. >> But objects: << But the parallel might not be perfect, because Snape's loyalty is far from perfect. In PoA, Snape openly questions Dumbledore's trust of Lupin, eventually disobeying Dumbledore's instruction that Lupin's werewolf status remain confidential. In GoF, Snape may have played a role in allowing a dementor in the castle, despite Dumbledore's express wishes. >> I agree that the analogy is not perfect. I would say my argument is strongest when it concerns Snape's relationship with Harry. This is, after all the Book of Harry, not the Book of Remus. :-) To my knowledge Snape never defies Dumbledore's direct orders where Harry is concerned. I guess I added the evidence of Snape's investigation and prosecution duties against Lupin, Sirius and other as supplementary evidence. In other words, Snape sticks his (long) nose in various people's businesses because he's like that. As if that needed arguing. I think Snape is still loyal enough to Dumbledore for jazz. I see their fractious moments as the sort of thing you'd expect in a father-son relationship with its concomitant resentments, misunderstandings and unconditional love. You and I disagree on the dementor issue. I tend to forgive him for it, or at least see it as an issue of misjudgment rather than disloyalty. I can't see any evidence that Snape wanted to see Crouch Jr. soul-sucked and let Fudge have his way in purposeful defiance of Dumbledore. Snape is no friend of Fudge at this point. However, since Fudge outranks Dumbledore I can see where Snape would have consented to the Dementor-as-bodyguard thing until he realized too late what was happening. I can't imagine Snape being able to summon up a happy memory at a split second's notice and thus fire off an effective Patronus. :-) I suspect Dumbledore realizes this. As to the Lupin-outing thing, yes you have me there. I can defend Snape quite a bit along the lines of arguing that he still considered Lupin a threat to Harry and the general student body blah blah blah, but even so, it would appear he was flouting Dumbledore's authority here. Hmm. As I believe I crammed into a footnote somewhere, Snape, you see, is a *complicated* character and his various roles in the text do occasionally impinge on one another. This is one instance. Cindy goes on to ask: << But what exactly is the meaning of the malfeasance Snape is trying to establish? In CoS, it is perhaps an attempt to prove Harry is evil. In PoA, during "Snape's Grudge," it is that Harry has endangered himself by going to Hogsmeade. In CoS, Snape raises the possibility of expulsion as punishment for Harry's ill-fated flight to Hogwarts, purportedly for damaging the Willow. In GoF, it is that Harry has endangered himself by placing his name into the Goblet. >> Interesting points. I'm not sure I ever expected Snape to have particularly coherent reasons for prosecuting Harry. I think the analogy is strongest if we take it on the level of worthiness, merit, and potential heroism. In the bible, if Job's praise of God is only conditional on God's good treatment of him, then he's not very worthy by their standards. Given that Harry is a schoolboy, his unworthiness would be realized more in breaking rules for selfish reasons, being arrogant, etc., all the things that Snape usually accuses him of (rightly or wrongly). I thought of Snape as being a bit more analogous to a Real World prosecuting attorney who will look for whatever weaknesses in a defense he can find. If he gains an advantage by harping on the motivation, he will; if the physical evidence favors his case, he'll harp on that instead. In each case you mention above I think Snape's function apropos to my argument is to point out how Harry has, or seems to have, broken the rules in some way (flying an illegal car, damaging a tree, sneaking off to town, entering a contest forbidden to him). I'm not convinced Snape is trying to prove Harry is evil in CoS; I agree that he is probably pretty worried about what effect LV's curse might have had on him, but I don't recall that he implies that Harry is evil. Harry certainly worries about it, but more because of what Tom Riddle has to say. With the Mrs. Norris thing I think Snape was more trying to hold him in contempt of court for lying on the witness stand. I think when Snape threatens H! arry with expulsion, gives him the evil eye or that sort of thing it's mostly to frighten him and discourage him from whatever mischief he's doing. I do agree that Snape is very often motivated by a desire to protect Harry, which has nothing to do with the satan of Job. Again, all I can say here is that's yet another role and another essay. :-) Except to add that this is another ironic instance of Snape really being on Harry's side and acting in his best interest despite his seeming antagonism. Still, not exactly the same as in Job, I admit. Similarly, I don't think that Snape consciously desires to test Harry's loyalty or allegiance (although it might be on his mind in CoS). However, I would say that Snape has that effect whether he wants to or not. In other words, it's his function, his role as a written character, rather than whatever it is he actually desires (which we don't really know at this point). The satan of Job basically wants to provoke Job to the point of making him crack. Snape performs the same function, for instance, when he provokes Harry so much that he imagines performing the Crucio on him (much as he occasionally imagines cursing Dudley). I could be wrong, but I think this is the sort of thing that will come back to haunt Harry afterwards. It sounds like the sort of blind rage we can expect him to grow out of as he matures. Snape also makes Harry think hard about what allegiance and loyalty mean, even if it's to raise more questions in Harry's mind than answers. Certainly Harry is put in the position of whether to trust him because he is a teacher, because Hagrid vouches for him, because Dumbledore vouches for him, because Hermione (eventually) defends him -- all this and Harry still hasn't really decided. So if the satan of Job represents God's dark side, the unpleasant aspects of his will, Snape also represents the tough part of being on Dumbledore's team. The leap of faith Harry will have to eventually make to embrace something he hates in order to embrace the whole package, to do what is right rather than easy, to remember everyone's supposed to be on the same side despite their personal differences. Snape is the bitter pill, erm, potion that Harry has to swallow. In my essay I mentioned God as defense: >"Here we can also see how the satan has the duties a divine >prosecuting attorney; he states the opposing case and casts >aspersions on the hero, while God's argues for the defense." Cindy comments: << Yes, that makes sense. But if Snape fulfills the role of the satan, then who in HP fulfills God's role, the role of arguing for Harry's defense? Oddly, it often seems to be various Hogwarts teachers. >> I would say that the role of defender is fragmented and diffuse, just as it is in Job, just as it was in the ancient world and just as it is in the trials in the Pensieve. The role of defense attorney isn't quite developed either in the bible or the Potterverse. Despite what I say in the essay, God is really not the ideal defense attorney of Job. While he does verbally defend him to the satan, he does nothing to really help him until after he's suffered for a long time. In fact there are some brutally ironic moments in Job where he cries out to the heavens for an intermediary to discuss his case with God. What he doesn't know is that he has one...the satan. Be careful what you wish for. :-) So no one of the teachers fulfils this role. McGonagall is pretty random about it. There are times when she defends him heavily, as you point out in GoF. There are times when she only defends him when Snape provokes her, as with Filch's cat. There are times when she acts like she wants to strangle him herself, as in PS/SS after the Norbert incident, and times when she gets livid and then relents a bit (after the Anglia scrape). Similarly, Lupin, who doesn't want to be caught agreeing with Snape in front of Snape, defends Harry at first, but chides him in private and refuses to ever lie for him again. And Fake!Moody obviously only defends Harry when it suits him. So Harry's defenders come on a case-by-case basis. I think there are times where it can be said that Dumbledore implicitly sides with Harry. I know he seems neutral sometimes, but you can often see where his loyalties lie. << Further, if the various teachers seem to fulfill the role of God more completely than Dumbledore, then what role, if any, does Dumbledore play? Is he part of the composite of characters who fulfill a small part of the role of God to oppose Snape's satan, or is there another parallel that can be drawn? >> I think the problem here, which I might not have made clear enough in the essay, is that God's role in Job is complicated and weird. He sort of defends him, sometimes more verbally than in action, but very neutrally lets him suffer a lot. Dumbledore does all this to Harry as well. He oversees all this injustice and steps in only occasionally, and sometimes awkwardly, to assist Harry (like with the point-awarding at the end of PS/SS, which people agree was contrived). I'd say the stronger analogy is between Dumbledore and God when they work in strange ways, when they allow bad things to happen but, we presume, for an eventual good. In my essay I point out that Snape is one of Dumbledore's most loyal adherents, thus intriguing Cindy's inner anti-Snape. She argues: << Yes, it is true that Snape is frequently present at pivotal moments, as Porphyria points out. But he is curiously absent at other moments -- moments when one would expect Dumbledore's inner circle to be accounted for. Significantly, Snape is not present when Dumbledore makes his first important decision about Harry's future -- when Harry is left with the Dursleys. >> This is not a good example of when Dumbledore's inner circle should be accounted for. McGonagall is there out of her own curiosity. He didn't ask for her to show up, he doesn't want her advice and he doesn't listen to it. D. has his mind made up about Harry, he doesn't want a committee to figure it out for him. Plus, we can only guess what Snape was doing at this point. He might have had some other crucial job to do then. I like to think he was slitting his wrists over letting the Potters die, but hey. We have no idea whether he was officially employed by Hogwarts at this point either. All my examples of how Snape is important to Dumbledore occur in the four years that Harry is going to school, during which we can best judge the situation. << Snape is also inexplicably absent during all three of the tasks in GoF. In fact, Hagrid (who is not a fully qualified wizard) is selected to monitor the third task instead of Snape, despite Dumbledore's apparent concern about Harry's safety and the meaning of several mysterious events throughout the school year. >> I think Dumbledore's choice here has to do with Hagrid's facility for magical beasts. Just because Dumbledore has roles for his other trusted servants doesn't mean Snape is not important. << Can Snape be more than a prowling nuisance if Dumbledore does not seek his counsel during Dumbledore's most difficult decisions? >> Of course we don't see everything. We don't know what Snape was doing during the tournament. Maybe he was "preparing" for his inevitable task while everyone else's attention was distracted. I think the text suggests that he and Dumbledore have a lot of off-stage discussions. I still think the weight of my argument supports the idea that Snape is very often very important to Dumbledore if perhaps not every single moment in time. << One final question about the parallel between Snape and the satan. I assume that the satan in the story of Job is the supreme adversary to God, that there is no entity more powerful than the satan other than God. I think it is clear in HP, however, that Snape is far from the most powerful wizard in the books. I assume Voldemort is more powerful, and it is beyond dispute that Snape is quite intimidated by Moody. Even Dumbledore is likely more powerful. >> Here I'll have to attack your premise. The satan in Job is just an angel. OK, maybe an archangel. But from my research I'd say there's no indication he's supposed to be particularly powerful. My research suggests that not only is "satan" not a name but it's not even an official title (like "Prime Minister"), it's more of a role. The satan was the angel who drew the satan-duty straw that morning. It's not necessarily the same guy from book to book. Plus, like Snape, the satan in the Hebrew bible gets shot down a lot. He loses the argument in Job and so too in Zechariah where he tries to contest Joshua. He doesn't need to be more powerful than any other divine entity, he just needs to perform his adversarial duty well. Same with Snape. He has to be good at being a nosy git. I'd say he's great at it. << So, Porphyria. Is there anything about the satan in Job or in other Biblical references that can explain some of Snape's vulnerabilities? >> By no means all. But I see the satan as a figure of cynicism, born of a sort of outrage at the concept of injustice. This is an idiosyncratic reading of the satan, I suppose, but I think his purpose in the text of Job is to introduce the idea of injustice and hone the concept of piousness. Snape is the figure of unforgiven injustice, given his lasing bitterness at the prank and whatever else it is he's bitter about. As Elkins has pointed out, he's the dark side of memory; grudges, jealousy, resentment. This all contributes to what I see as Snape's vulnerabilities. The points where he really loses control are when he's feeling unjustly accused or musing on some injustice from his past. So in a way he represents the dark side of not being able to rise above the world's injustices. He's the image of rancor that Harry needs to overcome (and usually does) in order to think straight. Thanks for playing! ~~Porphyria From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon May 6 23:02:58 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 23:02:58 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Harry giving up powers? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38515 Caroline wrote: > I am one of the few (heck, maybe I'm the *only* one)who believes that > Harry's Big Bangy secret is that he is a living embodiment of the > philosopher's stone. (This is all based on an alchemical > interpretation of the symbols that surround Harry; stag, phoenix, > lion, serpent, color green, red, etc. I could go into great detail > but I'll restrain myself :--) Not that he's necessarily immortal, but > that he holds within his being the potential for eternal life if > properly activated. Oooh! My inner Bang is seriously warming to this idea! Caroline, I think you could well be on to something with this. "Stoned Harry" -- it works for me! I think I want in on the ground floor of this burgeoning movement. Actually, the idea that Harry has the potential for eternal life explains a lot of canon mysteries. It explains why Dumbledore seems not to be troubled by Harry's rule-breaking. It explains why the DEs couldn't curse fleeing Harry. It explains why Harry was stronger than Voldemort in the duel. It explains why Harry was able to survive his duel with the Basilisk. I've never been entirely comfortable with the wobbly explanation for Harry's unique ability to survive AK -- that his mothers' love was so unique that it protected him, and AbsentMinded!Voldemort forgot all about this. It also goes a ways toward explaining why Dumbledore is so secretive about Harry's past. After all, Dumbledore can hardly walk up to Harry and tell him that the good news is that Harry is immortal, but the bad news is that he has to sacrifice this to save the wizarding world. That would be a bit of a bummer, to say the least. Answer me this, though. Where did Stoned Harry's potential for eternal life come from? Is it embodied in his scar? Does it have something to do with parseltongue, do you think? Is it related to the analysis of alchemy you mentioned (which I don't remember so you might have to repeat)? Hmmm. If we figure this one out, we can practically write the end of Book 7, now can't we? Um, or at least, I think we can. I know one thing for sure, though. There is going to have to be a *seriously* Big catalyst for Harry to make this huge sacrifice; no way is he just going to slowly mull it and quietly screw up his nerve to to lay down his life. Cindy (who thinks Caroline is well on the way to figuring out the Big and Bangy Climactic Book 7 scene in which Harry chooses to make the ultimate sacrifice like a certain famous Biblical figure) From ahector at postmaster.co.uk Mon May 6 23:24:22 2002 From: ahector at postmaster.co.uk (Allison Hector) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 00:24:22 +0100 Subject: higher ed/ was Hogwarts prep school Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38516 An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed... Name: not available URL: From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon May 6 23:53:16 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 23:53:16 -0000 Subject: Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38517 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > > Now that I think of it, the only example I can think of where one of > the good guys engages in "type 3" rulebreaking is Sirius and his > Prank. Even though I believe Sirius only meant for Snape to be > frightened, not hurt or killed, he was still breaking rules in order > to cause something bad to happen to another person. Hmmm... I'm > actually not sure what JKRs opinion of the Prank is. Snape is furious > about it, but his reaction is not presented sympathetically. Sirius > is frankly unapologetic. Nobody else expresses an opinion, because > there are more immediate important things going on, but I did get the > definite feeling that Lupin does not approve. I'll be curious to see > if, in future books, Sirius ever acknowledges that he was wrong. Or, > failing that, if Lupin or Harry or Dumbledore ever express the opinion > that Sirius was wrong. I sincerely hope that Dumbledore thinks it was wrong, or else I don't understand how Snape can work for him. And it does not matter what Sirius meant - if there is a life debt between Snape and James (and Dumbledore thinks there is) there must have been a certain life threat. So it really bugs me when characters (and Sirius fans ;-) keep referring to it as a childish prank. Irene From dicentra at xmission.com Tue May 7 01:02:42 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 01:02:42 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38518 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > > Maybe JKR didn't > > have her chops down yet in Book 1, so Dumbledore's "tactical error" is > > actually hers. On the other hand, I would need to see evidence that > > the Slyths and Snape took it any harder than Neville did when he ate > > the canary creams. Do we hear them mutter about how they hate > > Dumbledore and his kind because of how they're being treated at > > Hogwarts? > > Given the perspective of the books, we wouldn't hear it if it did > happen. The Slytherins could be holding daily bitch-fests on the > subject in their common room, and unless Harry finds an occasion to > lurk behind the arras, we'll never know about it. We do know that the > Slytherins don't like Dumbledore, and none of them shed any tears when > he was temporarily removed in CoS. > If the effect the switcheroo had on the Slyths was significant to the story, JKR would have found some way to make their reaction visible. And I think they didn't mourn Dumbledore's departure in CoS because he's a known muggle-lover: their distain for him predated the last chapter of SS/PS and probably even predated the novel itself. > > Perhaps it all comes down to a difference in reading philosophies, > then. I believe that a work of fiction can have implications and > meanings that the writer didn't intend, and that the unintended > interpretations can be as valid as the intended ones. (Not always, > but they can be.) I can deal with finding *meanings* the author didn't intend (I'd never have made it through a literature program if I didn't), but as far as *events* go (and a bad reaction from the Slyths would count as an event), it didn't happen unless it is either shown or alluded to in the text itself. And it wasn't. Which is why I can see this only as a mild FLINT, if that, not as a demonstration of Dumbledore's bad judgment. (I guess I've just corrected too many Freshmen papers in which their reading of events was so off-the-wall that I got really sensitive about deviating from what the text presented as opposed to what their gut reactions to it were. [And I'm not comparing your analysis to those Freshmen papers, believe me. Freshmen papers don't have a leg to stand on; you do. And you can form a coherent paragraph :D]) > I also can't just discard my knowledge of the real world as irrelevant > to my reading of the books. Fantasy and science fiction writers do > sometimes deliberately construct totally alien societies where nothing > that we know applies, and readers must put aside all their human > preconceptions in order to immerse themselves in the story. But I > don't think JKR intended that any more than she intended for us to > condemn Dumbledore. I wouldn't call for a discarding of real-world knowledge (it's impossible to do) but rather for a privileging of the inner logic of the fictional world such that it gets the benefit of the doubt. Unfortunately, fictional worlds don't have all the bases covered. I don't know to what degree we can fill in the blanks for them with our own, beliefs, PoVs, and such. --Dicentra, who attributes whatever error there is to JKR and not to Dumbly-dorr From fluxed at earthlink.net Tue May 7 02:26:59 2002 From: fluxed at earthlink.net (A. Vulgarweed) Date: Mon, 6 May 2002 21:26:59 -0500 Subject: What If she got run over by a...God and Goddess Forbid!!! In-Reply-To: <1020678540.1395.19103.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38519 >*What if JKR got run over by a truck?* (Goat): >To begin with - and we're starting with the obvious stuff! - if >she goes and finishes the thing, she's bound to disappoint us. >There's no way she's going to finish this without selling a few >shippers down the river. Or if it turns out that Gryffindors >really can go bad and Slytherins can repent, she'll have ruined >the whole point of the sorting hat. Nah, I don't see it that way. I see the different houses as indicated the _ways in which_ someone is likely to be good or go bad. I just don't buy the Slytherin - destined to be bad; Gryffindor - destined to be good. I mean _some_ politicans and CEOs and powers-behind-the-throne must be good, right? Right? Oh, what do I know - I'm just a Ravenclaw who, if inclined to go bad, would sell my soul for knowledge like Faust...or Eve. My Hufflepuff friend over there would fall by being very loyal and faithful and thorough and diligent for a Bad Crowd or a Wrong Cause. The Gryffindors I know would jump to conclusions and lapse into self-righteous vigilantism. (more Goat) >Further: by finishing the series, Jo will loose much of her power >over our imaginations. I mean, it's all fine and well for her to >satisfy our narrative lust - but once she has done so, we'll all >chase off for our next fix and our excitement will gradually >dwindle away into patronizing, if not contemptuous, familiarity. >But suppose she never brought us to that climax we're all waiting >for - suppose we readers should spend the rest of history in the >throes of lectio interrupta? Irritating, yes - but it would place >her in a position of permanent - and unforgettable - dominance. I see. You like to prolong the anticipation into infinity, don't you? I can understand this perspective! I can admire it! I too have to admit I am enjoying this squirming a bit, waiting for the next whim of the Mistress. But how much longer can I take it? I forgot my safeword! Well, the only way to _really_ know what your limits are is to exceed them, at least once. (yet more Goat): But what I'm wondering about just now is >whether that anxiety - which we all feel, I think - isn't >something we ought to savor, rather than hope it'll be gone as >soon as possible. It's a bit like a suspended chord, where you >know that the fourth is supposed to be resolved up into a fifth >or down into a third - but feel that the dissonance creates a >sort of anxiety which has a beauty of it own. Yes! Yes! Yes! Having always been drawn to music that does NOT always neatly resolve, it is the open-endedness and compelling tension that makes all those easy-cheese major chords worth sitting through (you better space 'em out real good, though). The Rilke quote was beautiful and apt. I must say, I _do_ hope the series, when/if it does end, has some open threads and does _not_ tie everything up too neatly. I want questions left unanswered, I want interesting and problematic characters still alive, I want the sense of an open future and not-entirely-resolved past. Killing off everybody/spirit-nuking the WW, etc., is a cheat every bit as flat-out rude to one's readers as the "it was all a dream" trope. And with that, I'll be fine if JKR does end at the 7th book--a writer does have to stop somewhere, after all. But real stories don't actually have *endings*, only reasonable stopping points. I just want to see JKR get to what she considers a reasonable stopping point--doesn't mean _I_ have to stop there, imaginatively speaking. I mean, the entire now multimillion-dollar, incredibly diverse and creative role-playing-game industry more or less began as a thinly-disguised Create-Your-Own-Tolkien-Fanfiction Kit. (So has a lot of the high-fantasy publishing industry, for that matter). Once a writer has opened a door, he or she does NOT necessarily get to decide for the whole world when and how it closes. (spaketh the wise Goat): >Doesn't it *always* boil down to that? We think of a story as a >circle that needs to be completed, as suspended chord that needs >to be resolved. But perhaps for the circle never really closes. >For every answer, a new question crops up - for every >explanation, a new and more truculent Flint - for every sense of >closure a deeper sense of mystery - for every moment in which you >grasp the meaning, the realization that it has already escaped >you. >Is a book ever really "finished" - or do we just stop reading it? Is a book ever really "finished" -- or does the author just stop writing it? >And if so, could it be that an unfinished book allows a more >complete aesthetic experience than a finished one? Couldn't we say that _all_ books are in some sense unfinished? > Neil: >We as readers all visualize characters and things that take place in a book >differently. When that book is made into a movie, that personal >visualization is taken from us. As an example lets take Hermione. Up until >the movie we all had our own version of what she looked like. Now Hermione >looks like Emma Watson whether we like it or not. How uniform is that really, though? In my mind, she doesn't. She has a much rounder face and curlier hair and kind of messed-up teeth. Lots of the major characters in my mind don't really look like the actors who played them (although I think almost all the actors did a great job and I'm happy to accept their portrayals as different versions, as equally valid _representations_ of said characters) If you see a lot of the fanart out there, a lot of people have their own mental versions that still diverge widely from each other and from the actors. I think the power of the mental image is stronger than that--besides, in fandom you get used to a lot of different visual representations of the same characters: anybody remember the old Star Wars comics, done by a wide range of different artists with dramatically divergent styles? I saw the Ralph Bakshi animated LOTR as a kid, but I certainly never saw my Frodo and Sam like *that* (the actors in their current Celluloid Thing come a good deal closer, but still not....exactly). They kind of average out, influence your mental version but yours is still *yours.* I mean, quick: what does Hamlet look like? King Arthur? Does Moses really look like Charlton Heston? > >We have all read books 1-4 and we know book 5 is coming out. We know the >characters better than our neighbors. Until book seven is written we can >imagine anything happening that we want and it could be true. Checkout the >creative minds that write fanfic. Some have gone places where I would never >go, but until the series is finished anything is possible. Any relationship >is possible. Any character can live or die. Any situation is possible. >Once book seven is published the door is shut on speculation. Oh, but is it? Like I said above, I do fervently hope that not _everything_ is resolved. I think speculation will still go on, as it does about (like Irene said) Sherlock Holmes, about Dracula, about Middle-Earth, about Han and Luke and Leia's lives post-Rebellion, about the continuing voyages of the Starship Enterprise (every edition of it), etc. There are eight million stories in the naked Wizard World....JKR's only telling part of a few of them, after all. I do > >Therefore, as anxious as I am for books 5, 6 and 7 to be published, I dread >the day the series comes to a close. > >Neil I am too, but I think for me a good part of it is that the Goat is right--the anticipation *is* glorious, and I do fear anticlimax. Neil again: >It not just sensitivities, but publishers and Warner Brothers that we must >worry about. How much will they try to influence Rowlings? What if >Rowlings' plans for the books were felt to be too intense for the younger >audience? Will she be presured to keep everything at a PG level? Bottom >line now is unfortunately the mighty dollar. > This I do worry about. I do think she was serious about writing what evil really means, and that means bloody grimness, no way around it. I think she will be able to write it in such a way that she doesn't have to go up to an R rating (not that it would bother me if she did, but I know it would bother many), but if she's really going to follow through on what she's set up...well, war and terrorism and murder and grief and mortal fear are _not_ PG-rated experiences. I would hope that parents would use these things in the books as a bridge to talk to their children about it (whether or not they're the lucky ones who don't have to deal with these things in reality all the time, as countless children do). I seem to remember a letter to Time or Newsweek or something like that when a parent wrote in that two different kids, who hadn't spoken to one another, each said that Sept 11 made them feel "like Lord Voldemort had returned", and having that literary experience to relate to was immensely helpful for them to get a handle on it. Both that writing and that conversation takes guts, though. Major guts. They never were just innocuous children's books, and I'm really hoping she doesn't get smacked down or seduced into perpetuating a charade that they are. Left to her own devices, I don't think for a second she would...but who's ever got the luxury of being left to their own devices in that micro-managed industry? The more I think about it, the more awful I feel for her. on that note.... AV From dicentra at xmission.com Tue May 7 02:25:18 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 02:25:18 -0000 Subject: Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38520 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote:> Dicentra: > >>>I'm afraid that I'm not in agreement. First, talking in terms of > "rights" is misleading, inaccurate, and inadequate. "Rights," > properly used, is a term used to describe the relationship > between governments and the governed. A government grants > rights to individuals; these rights draw a line between the > government and the individual that government is not allowed to > cross.<<<< Pippin: > So, when the Declaration of Independence says, "We hold these > truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they > are endowed *by their Creator* with certain inalienable rights, > that among these rights are life, liberty and the pursuit of > happiness..." it's being misleading and inaccurate? Er....I prefer > the term "revolutionary". :-) Dicentra: The Creator is a governing entity, and He grants rights to the governed. I also claim the DoI's meaning as falling under my umbrella. ::Dicentra tries to stake her flag *right next* to Pippin's and they get into an elbowing match. It stops before there are injuries. Both flags are sticking out of the same hole, leaning in opposite directions.:: > Pippin: > I don't believe that we can, as humans, approach the Ultimate > Good. Rowling does not attempt to symbolize it for us in the > Potterverse, and this is, I think, why we are having so much > trouble grappling with the question. This does not mean, I > hasten to say, that I don't believe an ultimate good exists, either > here or in the Potterverse. Yet it is beyond our grasp, almost > beyond our imagination, though perhaps we come closest to it > when we give of ourselves. Dicentra: There might be a problem with semantics, here, and I think I'm the one who sinned through inexactitude. My use of the term Ultimate Good is not Platonic or neo-Platonic. I'm not looking for anything in the realm of ideas that is so detached from human understanding that words fail it entirely. I mean Ultimate Good as What The Novels Say Is The Opposite Of Evil. I'm trying to find the measuring stick you use to say that something is good or evil. I guess that's how this discussion started. I'll try to be more precise. > Pippin: > But our ability to give ourselves is sorely limited. It's tough to love > our neighbors, it's harder to love our enemies, in the Potterverse, > as we see time and again, it's almost impossible to love the > stranger. Love is too narrow to embody goodness for me, at > least as we experience it in the Potterverse. Dicentra: We certainly don't see it very clearly, except in Lily's sacrifice; Dumbledore expressly identifies Love as what protected Harry from AK. But as Eloise says, the love that protected Harry wasn't Lily's affection for him, but her willingness to give of herself to protect him. (Didn't you say essentially that?) It was the tangible act, not the emotion, that did the trick. Pippin: > Crouch loved his > wife, and she loved her son, yet that relationship led them to do > evil, because they didn't consider anyone but themselves. Dicentra: This business with the Crouches is fascinating: can you really call what Mrs. Crouch did self-sacrifice (she was on the verge of death anyway)? What possessed Crouch Sr., who obviously knew his son was a DE (hence the Imperius) to go through with the switch? Did Mrs. Crouch think her son was guilty and didn't care or did she honestly believe she was undoing an injustice? Too much to cover here... maybe we can cover this switcheroo in the "Dissin' the Slyths" thread. :D Pippin: > That's > where I see "rights" coming in to the Potterverse, because, to > me, "rights" defines the relationship between ourselves and the > stranger, and Harry is the ultimate stranger. Dicentra: OK. We might be getting somewhere here. If by "rights" you mean another person's humanity--the fact that the other person has needs, wishes, feelings, and *worth* equal to one's own, then I can buy that definition. I just can't bring myself to *use* the term because of its legalistic overtones and because the word gets used to end arguments. ("I have the right to play my stereo as loud as I want," i.e., go [censored] yourself if you don't like it.) What if we used "humanity" or "intrinsic worth"? Does that cover all the necessary territory? > Pippin: > What is it that allows Harry to give to others beyond his capacity > to love? Lily gave her life for Harry because she loved him, but > does Harry love Pettigrew? I don't think so, but he spares him. > Pettigrew's life has no value to Harry, as he says, but his right to > live does. Harry does not want to see Remus and Sirius become > violators of that right. Dicentra might say that he doesn't want > them to become predators. The trouble I see with that is that they > are predators already--in the most literal sense, in fact. Sirius > eats rats, Werewolf!Remus will prey on humans if he can. What > is the difference between killing a man and a rat, morally, unless > we say that there is some intrinsic value to a human > being--some right to live? Dicentra: Actually, I wouldn't say that Harry doesn't want them to become predators. I don't know that Harry sees killing Pettigrew as intrinsically evil. He doesn't seem to interpret Sirius's desire to kill Peter as selfish. (If it were selfish, Sirius wouldn't have yielded to Harry's intervention). Harry is standing in his father's shoes--the father who rescued his own enemy from death to preserve these same two people from having blood on their hands many years ago. Remus and Sirius are not human predators: Remus doesn't prey on anyone--the werewolf does, and it does it against his will. Sirius eats rats because Padfoot is a carnivore AND because he is sacrificing comfort to be as close to Harry as he can. Predators in the natural world don't kill unless they need to. (The exception to this is felines, who injure beasties and play with them until they're dead. Bad Kitty! [I like cats and own one, in case that sounded like gratuitous cat bashing.]) I doubt very much that Padfoot killed any rats except to eat, which nature accepts as OK. Human predators kill not from need but from greed. The dehumanization of other people enables them to do so. So Sirius and Remus don't fit the definition of predator in this sense. They knew they didn't stand to gain anything from Peter's death except finality, and they didn't see Peter as less than human--just as a human who had done something Exceedingly Evil. Maybe you could say they were willing to sacrifice their clean hands to enact justice? > > Dicentra says: > No one in the Potterverse upholds someone's right to have > unpopular or evil ideas and counts it as courage or morality. > (This theme does, however, show up frequently in > American television.) I don't see it as the issue JKR is > addressing. > Pippin cites: > Dumbledore:" --without Pettigrew, alive or dead, we have no > chance of overturning Sirius's sentence." > *"But you believe us."* > "Yes, I do," said Dumbledore quietly. "But I have no power to > make other men see the truth, or to overrule the Minister of > Magic." > > Dumbledore, as McGonagall pointed out way back at the > beginning of Book One, does in fact have such power, or would if > he chose to use it. He's too noble: that is to say, he doesn't use it > because he has "a highly moral character." (dictionary definition > of noble) Dicentra: How would he do it in this case? Imperius? Pippin: > Then in GoF, when Dumbledore has failed to convince Fudge > that he should contact the giants: "You must act as you see fit. > And I--I shall act as I see fit." > > Dumbledore allows Fudge liberty of conscience, even though he > believes Fudge is dangerously wrong. > Dicentra: Yes, he does indeed allow Fudge his moral autonomy, but not without a fight. However, I don't see JKR holding this up as an example of The Kind Of Virtue That Will Eventually Defeat Voldemort, either. Um, is it possible we're actually on the same side, or at least close to it? ::Looks at the flags; tilts hers upwards a bit. Pippin's reacts by rising a bit, too.:: See? They're practically pointing in the same direction. OK, we started with the concept that the difference between the Good Guys and the Bad Guys is that the Good Guys recognize a difference between good and evil whereas the Bad Guys do not. Then we went to "what the sam hill do Good and Evil consist of anyway"? Then Pippin said "respecting others' rights" might be what separates Dumbledore from Voldemort, in part at least. Dicentra complained about the use of the term "rights" as inadequate and proffered self-sacrifice vs. predation as the litmus test. Eloise tried hard to resolve the two points of view, but Dicentra stubbornly refused to use the word "rights" because it tastes like broccoli to her. Then Eloise got confused, Pippin continued to defend "respecting others' rights" as the litmus test, and then Eloise jumped on Pippin's post and went on to pull together a good working definition of Love as a principle of action rather than an emotion. Dicentra, encouraged by Eloise's post, tried again to make her point clear, and realized she was invoking ideas she didn't mean to. Then when reading Pippin's latest post, Dicentra realized that Pippin wasn't necessarily using the term "rights" in the way that makes Dicentra want to hurl, and that "recognizing others' humainity or intrinsic worth" was the point on which they could agree. So in Eloise's words, which just might tie all this together: "When the strong exploit the weak they are denying the bond, they imply that the weak are less than human, that they do not deserve the same privileges that the strong accord to themselves. Hasn't much of the worst evil that mankind has perpetrated involved precisely the deliberate de-humanisation of others? "So what am I saying? I suppose I want to suggest that love, in the sense of the active embracing of our common bond with the rest of humanity, is the highest moral good and that it is manifested in our relationships with the weak and the stranger. Conversely lack of love is manifested in exploitation and predation. In the Potterverse, Dumbledore, in his own strange way, represents one and Voldemort the other." Does that sound about right? --Dicentra, laughing because she and Pippin are arguing the same side of the "Dissin' the Slyths" thread From pennylin at swbell.net Tue May 7 03:06:22 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Mon, 06 May 2002 22:06:22 -0500 Subject: Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6) (Take #1) References: Message-ID: <010601c1f574$2b13e4a0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38521 Hi all -- I've been looking forward to this discussion topic for some time. I hope we'll kick around lots of good ideas this week as we explore the concept of "rule-breaking" within the Potterverse. Amy is certainly correct in noting that it is this aspect of the books that seem to result in the heaviest criticism, both from people who object to the books on religious grounds as well and those who have no religious or occultic objections. Think about the individual's relationship to the law - Hogwart's rules, national wizarding laws, international wizarding laws - and then think about those who operate outside of these laws. Focus in particular on the characters of Sirius Black, Barty Crouch, Ludo Bagman, Arthur Weasley, the Weasley twins, Harry, Ron and Hermione, all of whom either bend the rules or break the law. Which rules or laws do they break? Does Rowling see their behavior as justified? Why or why not? How does she gauge whether a law or a rule is just or unjust? When are laws or rules susceptible to challenge? I'd like to take the time to go carefully through the books & catalogue each instance of rule-breaking, but in the interests of time, I'm going to just go from memory & probably only hit the big stuff. SIRIUS BLACK -- Irene said, with regard to The Prank (that Sirius played on Snape): <<<>>>> Well, I am a serious Sirius fan, and while I don't speak for all of us, I can say that I've not heard it referred to as "just a childish prank" that should be excused on the grounds that Sirius was too young or immature to understand what he was doing. What I do think most of us would say is: We don't know too terribly much about the underlying circumstances that led to The Prank, and *really* we don't know too awfully much about The Prank itself when you get right down to it. So, my principal argument on this score is that there is not enough information to make an informed judgment one way or another. IMO of course. We've no idea what Snape did to incite Sirius to pull the Prank; I don't think I'm alone in supposing it is most unlikely that Sirius did it for no reason at all. We don't know what Sirius' intentions were, and yes, intentions *do* matter. I think they matter in general in *our* society (certainly criminal statutes prescribe different penalties depending on the perpetrator's intent at the time of commission of a crime), and they certainly seem to matter in Rowling's conception of the WW in the HP series. That is in fact the entire point of this week's debate: Does Rowling perceive that there are higher purposes that justify breaking rules or laws in order to accomplish a desired end? Yes, I think clearly she does. We see evidence of this time & again in the series. So, with regard to intent, I would argue quite strongly that Sirius' intentions do indeed matter very much in evaluating this question. Of course, we don't know what his intentions were, so I think we must in fairness concede possible motivations at both ends of the spectrum and everything in-between. It is quite possible that Sirius pulled a Prank that was supposed to have certain non-life-threatening results, but unbeknownst to him, certain variables occurred that led to vastly different possible outcomes. In the other extreme, it is also possible that Sirius *knew* that Snape's death was a possibility. Sirius is seemingly completely unrepentent about The Prank. In every other area of our exposure to Sirius in GoF, I would argue that Sirius has a strong moral grounding (a strong sense of his responsibilities as Harry's godfather, a strong sense of how Crouch, Sr. might have handled family affairs poorly, etc.). So, does he have a blind spot with respect to Snape, or maybe, just possibly, is there more to The Prank than we the readers yet know? While I'm on Sirius, other evidence of "rule-breaking": -- Becoming an unregistered animagus -- IMO, this falls into the category of "rule-breaking" akin to Harry's trip to Hogsmeade (for all the "Marauders"). At the *time,* there are no real drastic consequences for their actions (Lupin doesn't kill Snape and they merely frolicked & had fun, etc.). But, think about how this series of "rule-breaking" eventually spins out to have rather dramatic consequences. This leads rather directly to Pettigrew's ability to hide-out from justice for years and Black's wrongful imprisonment. So, I think Rowling's ultimate verdict on this score is that rule-breaking for fun or convenience has consequences, often serious consequences. -- Escaping from Azkaban - higher purpose "rule-breaking" surely. While he could have used the same methods to escape at any point, it isn't until the motivation of safe-guarding Harry that he takes the steps to escape. He does seek to safe-guard Harry. He also seeks to take vengeance into his own hands, and it is here that he runs into problems under Rowling's moral compass IMO. If his sole objective had remained the protection of Harry, circumstances might have turned out very differently. Consequently, Sirius doesn't get to clear his name -- a consequence of his attempts to exact his own scheme of justice. But, in GoF, Harry's welfare has remained his central concern. While he may have some short respite in the tropics, he is clearly not leading the good life for the bulk of the action in GoF (living on *rats*!). So, his escape & continued evasion of the WW legal system seem to get a nod of approval from JKR -- again, a higher purpose where the ends justify the means I think. Also, since the circumstances of his wrongful imprisonment are meant to excite the readers' sympathies (heh ... JKR might not have reckoned on the Snape fans) & perhaps their outrage with respect to the vagaries of the WW legal system in general -- I think this bolsters the sense that his escape and his continued existence in hiding are justified. Hum... I haven't even touched on any of the other characters & I'm out of time for tonight. Well, I'll continue tomorrow -- maybe I'll have time to parse through the books some more. I agree in general with Marina's break-down of categories though. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Tue May 7 04:00:15 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 04:00:15 -0000 Subject: Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38522 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > Now that I think of it, the only example I can think of where one > of the good guys engages in "type 3" rulebreaking is Sirius and his > Prank. (snip) > but I did get the definite feeling that Lupin does not approve. Remus *could* have an entirely selfish reason for disapproval: what does MoM do to a werewolf who bites a wizard? At the very least, having to leave Hogwarts. Possibly imprisonment or execution. Also, as a fairly mature and thoughtful person, or as a person who cares about Sirius, he probably thought that Sirius was being a complete idiot to take so much risk to his Sirius-self (does murder by use of a werewolf rate a life sentence in Azkaban?) for so little purpose. I love Remus for, among other things, his kindness and decency, but I doubt whether, at the age of 16, he would have been other than pleased if Severus had been offed in some way that didn't involve the Gryffindors: eaten by a chimaera, or (better yet) cursed by some fellow Slytherin for some obscure Slytherin reason. Would it have bothered Remus if Severus had dissolved himself in his own cauldron during PoA, other than his need for Wolfsbane Potion? Maybe sympathy for Dumbledore feeling the loss of his inexplicably valued colleage. From gideoner4 at yahoo.com Tue May 7 09:29:22 2002 From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (queen_of_slytherin) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 09:29:22 -0000 Subject: What If she got run over by a...God and Goddess Forbid!!! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38523 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "A. Vulgarweed" wrote: > >*What if JKR got run over by a truck?* > > (Goat): If it turns out that Gryffindors > >really can go bad and Slytherins can repent, she'll have ruined > >the whole point of the sorting hat. > Nah, I don't think JK is likely to be run over by a truck. But if anything happens to her before she finishes the series...! I don't wanna think about it. Anyway, not one house is said to be, directly or indirectly, "the house of the evil witches and wizards." The sorting hat didn't even make such an implication. It is unfair to say that one house can be bad while the other is good. One can be brave and bold enough to do unspeakable horror someday, right (Gryffindor)? One can be intelligent and use the knowledge for evil (Ravenclaw). One can be loyal to an evil master and be helpful and hardworking to bring down the good guys (Hufflepuff). All houses, not just Slytherin, can turn out bad wizarding folk. And Slytherins can turn out good witches and wizards (even though the probability is lower compared to other houses. After all, one can be ambitious enough to change the world for the better (Slytherin). From lupinesque at yahoo.com Tue May 7 09:52:26 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (Amy Z) Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 02:52:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Dementors' Kiss - Unfinished Stories - Harry losing his powers/immortality? - Crouches Message-ID: <20020507095226.88588.qmail@web20307.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38524 DEMENTORS' KISS Bernadette wrote: >I'm also uncomfortable with the idea >that they've chosen a method of social/judicial punishment where >they don't actually know the full effects of the process, having >the possibly mistaken assumption that the soul is destroyed, when >it may not be. Have we done any differently in having a death penalty in a world where we don't know what happens upon death? It may just be that the WW concludes that a Kissed person has lost his/her soul because of the observed effects-it doesn't mean their theologians have a more definitive idea of what a soul is and what becomes of it upon death/being Kissed than Muggles do. UNFINISHED STORIES The Goat brought out the big guns and quoted: >You, sir, are so young - so before every beginning - >and I would ask you, as best I can, dear >sir, to have patience toward all that is unsolved >in your heart and to try to love the questions >themselves like closed living-rooms >and like books written in a >very foreign language. >So why not take the next logical step of leaving the door closed >permanently - and go on enjoying the mystery of it all? You go right ahead. Rilke or no Rilke, I'm reading everything JKR writes the second I can get my grimy little hands on it. >We think of a story as a >circle that needs to be completed, as suspended chord that needs >to be resolved. But perhaps for the circle never really closes. Tongue in cheek or not, you raise an interesting question. For my part, it isn't the continuation of plot-"what's going to happen next?"-that drives my obsession. I just want to read more about these characters. Therefore I'm going to be very sad when JKR stops writing about this universe, even if the "story" (the plot) is completed, because I will have no fresh words to read about who these people are. It's also why I reread the books so much; I don't think Reread #10 is going to uncover any new angles on the plot or even on the characterizations that Reread #9 didn't, though sometimes it does; I just want to hear these people's voices some more, even though I've memorized what they're going to say. That's why I read fanfiction so obsessively for a few months, though finding these characters within the writing of anyone but JKR is a rare and fleeting event-which is why I *stopped* reading fanfiction so obsessively. Character, of course, keeps unfolding even when there are no new words, because there is always reinterpretation and the changes one's own life experiences work upon stories one has already reread countless times, but there's still a loss when the final words have been written and all one can do is relive scenes already experienced. (You're talking to someone who was depressed when she read the last Lord Peter book and knew it was only a matter of re-reading forevermore.) HARRY LOSING HIS POWERS/IMMORTALITY? Uh, this started out labeled TBAY but I'm de-TBAY-ing it. Cindy wrote: > After all, Dumbledore can hardly walk up to >Harry and tell him that the good news is that Harry is immortal, but >the bad news is that he has to sacrifice this to save the wizarding >world. That would be a bit of a bummer, to say the least. >There is going to have to be a >*seriously* Big catalyst for Harry to make this huge sacrifice; no >way is he just going to slowly mull it and quietly screw up his >nerve to to lay down his life. It's a huge sacrifice, to be sure, but Harry has already laid down his life quite deliberately (most pointedly in PS/SS, but repeatedly since). He has done so without any thought that he might be immortal; he really thinks on more than one occasion that he's about to die. So he would only be losing something that he never, until Dumbledore's revelation, thought he had to begin with. OK, I admit, it's still a bummer. >Cindy (who thinks Caroline is well on the way to figuring out the >Big and Bangy Climactic Book 7 scene in which Harry chooses to make >the ultimate sacrifice like a certain famous Biblical figure) Hmmm . . . not to diminish said Biblical figure in any way, but he didn't sacrifice immortality. He "just" agreed to die, in a particularly unpleasant way. Harry has done the same. CROUCHES Dicentra wrote: >This business with the Crouches is fascinating: can you really call >what Mrs. Crouch did self-sacrifice (she was on the verge of death >anyway)? Sure. Imagine dying alone, apart from your family, surrounded by Dementors . . . >What possessed Crouch Sr., who obviously knew his son was a >DE (hence the Imperius) to go through with the switch? I think the reason his son gives is believable: he loved his wife and it was her dying wish. And he's arrogant-he believes he can keep his son under house arrest for the rest of his life. I wonder what he thinks is going to happen when he, Sr., dies? >Did Mrs. >Crouch think her son was guilty and didn't care or did she honestly >believe she was undoing an injustice? I lean toward the former. Of course we know next to nothing about Mrs. Crouch so this is pure speculation, but that's never stopped us before. Put it this way: I don't think she needed the motivation of justice; she wanted to save her son because he was her son, period. Amy Z __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com From katgirl at lava.net Tue May 7 07:29:41 2002 From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 07:29:41 -0000 Subject: The Prank (Was: Re: Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6) (Take #1)) In-Reply-To: <010601c1f574$2b13e4a0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38525 Quote Penny: >> Well, I am a serious Sirius fan, and while I don't speak for all of us, I can say that I've not heard it referred to as "just a childish prank" that should be excused on the grounds that Sirius was too young or immature to understand what he was doing. What I do think most of us would say is: We don't know too terribly much about the underlying circumstances that led to The Prank, and *really* we don't know too awfully much about The Prank itself when you get right down to it. So, my principal argument on this score is that there is not enough information to make an informed judgment one way or another. IMO of course. We've no idea what Snape did to incite Sirius to pull the Prank; I don't think I'm alone in supposing it is most unlikely that Sirius did it for no reason at all. So, does he have a blind spot with respect to Snape, or maybe, just possibly, is there more to The Prank than we the readers yet know?<< I must confess to taking a view akin to no reason. I believe that Sirius was having a bad day and Snape asking about and likely insulting Remus didn't do anything to help. So during they're third class together, Sirius turns around and says, "Well, why don't you find out for yourself, Snape?" and proceeds to give him directions into the Willow. But this, I feel, is not the most important part. The most important part is that Sirius didn't go after Snape even after he'd had sufficient time to cool down. We know that Sirius isn't a coward, and so not rescuing Snape can't be out of fear. (He would be afraid, but he wouldn't let it affect him.) Sirius hated Snape too much to bother to get him from the tree. James had to intervene. But we're forgetting the last factor: Remus. Even if Sirius hated Snape too much to go after him, why didn't he consider Remus? They'd been friends for at least 5 years, and even if they hadn't been, anyone would have felt betrayed and angry. Sirius used Remus to get Snape, and even if he just did it out of frustration, after he cooled down he should have gotten Snape if only for Remus's sake. Suppose Snape HAD been killed? What would that have done to Remus? So, in conclusion, I have to agree with Penny. There is more to the Prank that has been portrayed so far. -Katherine From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue May 7 03:08:27 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 03:08:27 -0000 Subject: higher ed/ was Hogwarts prep school In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38526 Hmm...I really have to wonder about this. I don't think there are wizarding prep schools, it doesn't seem as though any of the students had an edge over each other when they first entered Hogwarts. Take Hermione for example- she did wonderful in all her classes first year, and she obviously couldn't have gone to a prep school- seeing as how she was from Muggle backgrounds. The only difference between the students seemed to have been that if you were of Muggle background, you just didn't know about certain "normal"(in a wizarding sense) things(i.e.- Quidditch, Howlers, Floo Powder, etc.) And then Ron and Neville were both from pureblood families and they didn't seem as though they knew any more anyone else. And this just makes me wonder...how do wizarding children learn to read or write or any of those fundametals that we learn in school? Do their mothers just home school them? That's the only answer I can come up with, unless they have a sort of primary school, and then from there they can go to a wizarding school. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue May 7 13:19:08 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 13:19:08 -0000 Subject: Dissin' the Slyths In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38527 I'm going to quote some things out of sequence here, in order to better organize my thoughts. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > If the effect the switcheroo had on the Slyths was significant to the > story, JKR would have found some way to make their reaction visible. I think we're all pretty much in agreement that JKR does not consider it significant to the story. And if we narrowly define "story" to mean "plot," then I don't consider it significant to that, either. But if the definition of story includes characterization (by which I mean not only the character's motives but also the moral, ethical and practical implications of their actions), then I do consider it significant. > I wouldn't call for a discarding of real-world knowledge (it's > impossible to do) but rather for a privileging of the inner logic of > the fictional world such that it gets the benefit of the doubt. > Unfortunately, fictional worlds don't have all the bases covered. I > don't know to what degree we can fill in the blanks for them with our > own, beliefs, PoVs, and such. It's always a tricky question when analyzing a piece of fiction. For a more obvious example, look at Sirius' Prank and its effect on Lupin. We never see Lupin criticizing Sirius about the Prank; we never see him acting angry or betrayed, or frightened of possible consequences to himself. Yet many readers (myself included) believe that Lupin must've been affected that way, and use that belief as part of the basis for censuring Sirius. Why? Because our understanding of the real world tells us that this is how a person of Lupin's temperament would react under such circumstances. Did JKR intend us to read it that way, or does she, in fact, view the Prank as just a childish joke that Snape is holding an unreasonable grudge about? Search me. I'm merely using the same basic interpretive process to evaluate the Prank, and Dumbledore's actions at the leaving feast, and any other action by any other character. > > Perhaps it all comes down to a difference in reading philosophies, > > then. I believe that a work of fiction can have implications and > > meanings that the writer didn't intend, and that the unintended > > interpretations can be as valid as the intended ones. (Not always, > > but they can be.) > > I can deal with finding *meanings* the author didn't intend (I'd never > have made it through a literature program if I didn't), but as far as > *events* go (and a bad reaction from the Slyths would count as an > event), it didn't happen unless it is either shown or alluded to in > the text itself. And it wasn't. I don't think it's an event at all. It's not like the Slytherins were all sweetness and light until Dumbledore switched the banners around, and then they all ran out and joined the Junior Death Eaters League. Most Slytherins already seem set on a certain course. I believe that Dumbledore's action provided undesirable reinforcement for that course, but that's hardly something that can be pointed to as an event. It's purely a matter of meaning. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 7 13:22:56 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 13:22:56 -0000 Subject: Knowin Who Yeh Are (FILK) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38528 KNOWIN WHO YEH ARE A filk by Pippin -- as requested by CMC To the tune of Swinging on a Star Original lyrics and tune at http://www.smickandsmodoo.com/lyrics/swingin.htm The scene: The Hut on the Rock The time: Just past midnight, July 31, 1991, shortly after Hagrid's unexpected arrival HARRY (spoken): I'm sorry, but I still don't really know who you are. HAGRID: I'm from Hogwarts Wizarding School I'm called Hagrid there, as a rule An' I've a bone teh pick with this fool Who never told yeh what yeh are At Hogwarts your parents learned each thing that they knew Yer Dad was a wizard, so are you. Yer mum was a witch, I'm telling you it's true The nicest people that I ever knew And so young man, there's letter here fer you Because it's time yeh went ter school. James and Lily's boy's what yeh are An' they didn't die in a car An' yer name is known wide and far The Boy Who Lived is who yeh are That scar came ter happen on a terrible night Yer Mum and yer Dad put up a fight. Though they, sad day, were killed by You Know Who His evil curse just didn't work on you They say that he vanished like a falling star And you escaped with just a scar. Everybody knows who yeh are In our world yer famous, you are, You'll have friends wherever you are Because they know about the scar VERNON: That boy won't be going anywhere, not with you I won't pay to send him to that school This plan of yours will get the big deep six No crackpot fool will teach him magic tricks HAGRID: Insult my boss in front of me, you big Buffoon, I'll turn your son into a pig! (I shouldna done that) Cause all the Muggles, yes, I mean you, Couldn't stop what I'm goin' ter do Harry, now it's all up ter you Things can be better than they are Now that yeh've found out who yeh are From Edblanning at aol.com Tue May 7 13:30:16 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 09:30:16 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Justice, Wisdom, Trials, Harry, Dumbledore and Snape Message-ID: <126.105363ca.2a0930e8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38529 Cindy, commenting on Porphyria's essay on parallels between HP and the book of Job: > But the parallel might not be perfect, because Snape's loyalty is > far from perfect. In PoA, Snape openly questions Dumbledore's trust > of Lupin, eventually disobeying Dumbledore's instruction that > Lupin's werewolf status remain confidential. In GoF, Snape may have > played a role in allowing a dementor in the castle, despite > Dumbledore's express wishes. Eloise: Granted, my dictionary defines a parallel as a precise copy, analogy, etc, but I am not sure that this is exactly what we are talking about here. The fact that the analogy may not be precise in every detail does not take away from the fact that there are some spookily close parallels between Snape and the satan. Close enough that I feel Porphyria may have uncovered his inspiration, or if not, that JKR had similar intentions in creating him as the writer of Job had in using the satan to be the litmus test of Job's character, loyalty, faith etc. As a tool for exploring the characters involved, moreover, we may find any differences there are all the more illuminating. Cindy: > This may be an area in which the parallel between the satan of Job > and Snape begins to break down just a bit. As Porphyria > explains, "satan remains completely loyal and obedient to God" > and "never exceeds [God's] instructions." But can the same be said > for Snape? Does Snape exceed Dumbledore's directives out of malice > or pursuit of his own agenda? Well, it appears so. Even if we > attribute laudable motives to Snape's actions in revealing Lupin's > condition, the fact remains that this was done in violation of > Dumbledore's express directive. The satan of Job, of course, never > Eloise: I personally do not question Snape's loyalty. I think there are occasions when he acts misguidedly, perhaps out of too much loyalty. On the occasions when he oversteps the mark, we could argue that from his POV, he is protecting Dumbledore, doing the things which Dumbledore should do, if he weren't so damn decent. (Or we could just argue that he's a vindictive SOB, but I choose to lay that aside for the purpose of this argument, before someone tries to sidetrack.) > > Porphyria: > > >"The frequency with which Snape takes the role of prosecuting > >attorney points up both his importance within the school and his > >function within the text. His interactions with Harry often figure > >as courtroom scenes, and his diction is filled with forensic > >allusions." > > > So a question: If Snape is functioning as satan (specifically > defined as the satan in the story of Job), what is the *purpose* of > Snape's prosecutorial role? Surely the satan in Job was not acting > to protect Job, although Snape occasionally appears to be motivated > by a desire to protect Harry. Conversely, Snape's activities do not > seem calculated to test Harry's loyalty or allegiance, which seems > to be the mission of satan in the story of Job. > > What, then, is Snape hoping to accomplish, consistent with the idea > Eloise: 'The satan' indicates a role, not a person. Therefore, Snape does not *always* have to be acting in that role. It is not inconsistent that Snape may sometimes take on another role. The satan persecuted Job, in an effort to break him to the point where his loyalty to God would be revealed to be a sham dependent on his well-being . The outcome is that Job's faithfulness is proved, not only to everyone else but to Job himself. Job goes through a refining process. Snape, some of us think, turned to the Dark side because he too was the victim of apparently unfair treatment at the hands of the 'Light' side, because its morality seemed bankrupt. He failed the test that Harry is being put through. If Harry is to be the kind of hero he is destined to be, then he must be able to remain loyal to the Light side whatever. Dumbledore's initial concern for Harry was to protect him from having his head turned by constant adulation from an early age. Job was in a position where prosperity made it easy for him to praise God without much thought. God agreed to Job being taken down a peg or two (to put it mildly) to test his integrity. Without Snape, Harry's life at Hogwarts could easily be full of the adulation from which Dumbledore initially protected him. Snape's persecution is part of the refining process which helps Harry to know himself, his ideals, his goals more fully. > > Porphyria: > > >"Here we can also see how the satan has the duties a divine > >prosecuting attorney; he states the opposing case and casts > >aspersions on the hero, while God's argues for the defense." > > Yes, that makes sense. But if Snape fulfills the role of the satan, > then who in HP fulfills God's role, the role of arguing for Harry's > defense? > > Oddly, it often seems to be various Hogwarts teachers. > > Ironically, it seems that Dumbledore is almost neutral when Harry is > being accused, which seems to suggest that Dumbledore's role is not > God's role of arguing for the defense. As we see teachers > (McGonagall, in > particular) rather than Dumbledore mount vigorous defenses of Harry, > is it fair to say that the various teachers act in the role of God > to Snape's satan? > > Further, if the various teachers seem to fulfill the role of God > more completely than Dumbledore, then what role, if any, does > Dumbledore play? Is he part of the composite of characters who > fulfill a small part of the role of God to oppose Snape's satan, or > Eloise: The actual encounters between God and the satan take up quite a small part of the Book of Job. God doesn't argue very much, more just states the case that Job is blameless. I have said in other posts that I do feel that Dumbledore is quite God-like and that this is manifested exactly in the difficult questions he makes us ask - the conundrum of evil that Porphyria addresses in the first part of her essay. Cindy: > Yes, it is true that Snape is frequently present at pivotal moments, > as Porphyria points out. But he is curiously absent at other > moments -- moments when one would expect Dumbledore's inner circle > to be accounted for. Significantly, Snape is not present when > Dumbledore makes his first important decision about Harry's future -- > when Harry is left with the Dursleys. Snape is also inexplicably > absent during all three of the tasks in GoF. In fact, Hagrid (who > is not a fully qualified wizard) is selected to monitor the third > task instead of Snape, despite Dumbledore's apparent concern about > Harry's safety and the meaning of several mysterious events > throughout the school year. Can Snape be more than a prowling > nuisance if Dumbledore does not seek his counsel during Dumbledore's > Eloise: We don't know what precisely what status Snape had with Dumbledore at the time of James and Lily's deaths. Yes, we think he was a trusted spy. But under the circumstances, I would expect he may well have had other things to do, things which Hagrid, for instance, could not accomplish. His position in the organisation may also (I think probably) not have been known to others such as McGonagall and Hagrid and perhaps then was not exactly the time to let the cat out of the bag. Hagrid is one of those who monitors the third task because of the beasts in the maze, or so I have always thought. Similarly, Moody, McGonagall and Flitwick were on patrol because of their specialist skills, which could aid a student in trouble. Snape notably *is* present with Dumbledore and McGonagall when they rescue Harry from Moody/Crouch. Cindy: > > One final question about the parallel between Snape and the satan. > I assume that the satan in the story of Job is the supreme adversary > to God, that there is no entity more powerful than the satan other > than God. I think it is clear in HP, however, that Snape is far > from the most powerful wizard in the books. I assume Voldemort is > more powerful, and it is beyond dispute that Snape is quite > intimidated by Moody. Even Dumbledore is likely more powerful. Eloise: Here, I think three different concepts are in danger of getting confused. First we have the Hebrew satan (with article), the adversary, whom we are considering here; then there is (no article) Satan, the Christianisation of the above who merges into the Devil, a Christian concept embodying pure evil and regarded as the supreme enemy. The latter's role, I would suggest, is taken by Voldemort. The satan has much more in common with what we might term 'devil's advocate' than with the Devil himself. A thought that intrigues me is whether we will see Snape take on any more of the satan's role. The satan, after all, is the character who tempts Christ in the wilderness, another refining process in which Christ's resolution is tested and strengthened. Might Snape later be the agent of an attempt to make Harry stray from his path? Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue May 7 10:09:09 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 10:09:09 -0000 Subject: Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38530 As I see handling of the matter of Sirius telling Snape how to get past the Whomping Willow, Snape going in there in order to get one of the Marauders expelled, ending up in *big* trouble - but being saved by James Potter. Sirius' part... we're supposed to hear him first and place judgements then. Withheld judgement until you hear the whole story. Innocent until proven guilty, right? And I don't like the word 'prank' here either. We don't know what Sirius was thinking before, during and after the matter. He seems to be blaming Snape for it... In all other cases of rule-breaking we *are* shown the motives and actions of *both* sides. -- Finwitch From doldra at hotmail.com Tue May 7 12:28:45 2002 From: doldra at hotmail.com (bystardust) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 12:28:45 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts prep school/Clothing In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38531 --- aldrea279wrote: > Hmm...I really have to wonder about this. I don't think there are > wizarding prep schools, it doesn't seem as though any of the students > had an edge over each other when they first entered Hogwarts. Take > Hermione for example- she did wonderful in all her classes first > year, and she obviously couldn't have gone to a prep school- seeing > as how she was from Muggle backgrounds. Maybe at primary school they take all the *regular* classes that seem to be absent from Hogwarts (math, English, etc.). I've also always wondered why pureblood children wear muggle clothes. If Ron's never been around non-wizarding people, then why does he dress like them? And why do the children at Hogwarts wear them under their robes? Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I'm new here and it's always bothered me. --Doldra From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue May 7 14:08:52 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 14:08:52 -0000 Subject: Barty's Soul (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38532 Barty's Soul (from GoF, Chap. 36) (to the tune of Party Doll) Dedicated to Pippin Hear the original at: http://www.buffnet.net/~ambrosia/page17.htm NOTE: Since the original song is rather sloppy to say the least with respect to its scansion (it tries to rhyme "doll" with "wild," for gosh sakes), I've allowed myself a similar liberty in my setting. And needless to say, my ending is completely non-canonical. THE SCENE: Pomfrey's infirmary. Present are HARRY and DUMBLEDORE. Enter McGONAGALL, FUDGE and a DEMENTOR McGONAGALL Well Fudge bought a `mentor to keep him safe The `mentor took a gander at that BC waif The little `mentor thought that his sight was bliss It decided right then it'd steal a kiss DEMENTOR Gonna go and suck out Barty's soul Gonna go and suck out Barty's soul Gonna go and suck out Barty's soul `Cause I'm a mean soul-snatch machine `Cause I like Crouch Cuisine DUMBLEDORE Well, I can't now get Barty to testify His spying for Voldy to verify FUDGE I don't want to sound at all unkind But he must lose soul for he's lost his mind (to DEMENTOR) Go ahead, and suck out Barty's soul Go ahead, and suck out Barty's soul Go ahead, and suck out Barty's soul Don't want demeanin' courtroom scenes I don't want courtroom scenes HARRY Barty Junior now has lost his very soul That `mentor his senses and feelings stole Only one thing's left for the likes of he: A top exec at WB (Enter CROUCH JR. in a three-piece suit, sunglasses, and a cell phone) HARRY & CROUCH JR. A top exec at WB! CROUCH JR. Wanna go and sign a three-pic deal Wanna go and sign a three-pic deal Wanna go and sign a three-pic deal And launch a franchise through the skies With mega-merchandise. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From dicentra at xmission.com Tue May 7 14:44:14 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 14:44:14 -0000 Subject: Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6) (Take #1) In-Reply-To: <010601c1f574$2b13e4a0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38533 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > > Sirius is seemingly completely unrepentent about The Prank. I'd emphasize "seemingly." You could read his remark about Snape sneaking around, trying to get people in trouble as embarrassment rather than unrepentance. He's been sitting there listening to Remus tell these kids, including his own godson Harry, about the stupid thing he did many years ago. Remus's tone indicates he didn't think it was all that funny (he uses "amusing" as a euphemism, but for what?). Sirius might be too embarrassed, and probably too proud, to say he was wrong, so he mutters something about how Snape had it coming to cover his shame. He might not actually believe what he said. Penny again: > He also seeks to take vengeance into his own hands, and it is here that he runs into problems under Rowling's moral compass IMO. If his sole objective had remained the protection of Harry, circumstances might have turned out very differently. Consequently, Sirius doesn't get to clear his name -- a consequence of his attempts to exact his own scheme of justice. Dicentra: I'm not sure this is Sirius's private scheme of justice. Remus doesn't question it for a moment, and it doesn't seem that Harry does either -- at least, not in terms of its legitimacy. Harry doesn't want his father's friends to become killers (he doesn't say "murderers"), but Harry never implies that a kind of unjustified vengeance is motivating Sirius or Remus. OTOH, I can't honestly say where killing Peter falls on "Rowling's moral compass." I don't think the only reason she has Harry stop them from killing Peter is so she can use him to revive Voldemort (there are other ways) or so that she can set up a life-debt between Harry and Peter (although that's awfully compelling) or to create a parallel between Harry "saving their souls" in this generation when James saved them in a similar manner from the consequences of The Prank (even though that's a cool parallel). She's obviously not squeamish about killing characters -- does she disapprove of killing Peter? Is she rejecting the WW's value system? She has expressed disgust at the WW's class system in interviews. Maybe she's not terribly impressed by their alleged system of justice on all kinds of levels. And given that we've talked about WW "justice" to death recently, I'll leave it at that. --Dicey, who must confess an extreme bias in Sirius's favor From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Tue May 7 15:18:58 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 15:18:58 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts prep school/Clothing/language/Muggle Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38534 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bystardust" wrote: > Maybe at primary school they take all the *regular* classes that seem > to be absent from Hogwarts (math, English, etc.). Pre-Hogwarts primary education may have to be arranged by a wiz-kid's family and there may be many ways of doing it: Maybe Molly home-schools her kids, The Malfoys brought in a tutor/governess for Draco. Some parents may form a coop school. Some may even use a house-elf, except for language. > I've also always > wondered why pureblood children wear muggle clothes. If Ron's never > been around non-wizarding people, then why does he dress like them? > And why do the children at Hogwarts wear them under their robes? > Sorry if this has been brought up before, but I'm new here and it's > always bothered me. The movie notwithstanding, the robes in the book cover everything. One wouldn't see anything they wore under their robes. The owl from Hogwarts specifies only the robes, not the jackets and ties we saw in the movie. When the kids are out of the robes, we do see Muggle clothing The Hogwarts kids not only dress like Muggle teens; they talk like them. Seems to me there is much more of an interface with the Muggle world than JKR needs to show us. We do know that a significant percentage of Muggles do believe in some form of ESP/paranormal reality. Some of them may actually deal with the WW. Probably many Wizards make their living from services to Muggles, although it is stricly controled by the MoM. Tex, who hasn't thought all this all the way through, yet. From midgiecat at aol.com Tue May 7 15:25:24 2002 From: midgiecat at aol.com (midgiecat at aol.com) Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 11:25:24 EDT Subject: HPFGU Digest Number 1843 Message-ID: <121.108a0c3e.2a094be4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38535 Subject: The Prank from katherine [ booklovinggirl" ] Quote Penny: < We've no idea what Snape did to incite Sirius to pull the Prank; I don't think I'm alone in supposing it is most unlikely that Sirius did it for no reason at all.> Quote Katherine: < I must confess to taking a view akin to no reason. I believe that Sirius was having a bad day and Snape asking about and likely insulting Remus didn't do anything to help. So during they're third class together, Sirius turns around and says, "Well, why don't you find out for yourself, Snape?" and proceeds to give him directions into the Willow. > < why didn't he consider Remus? Sirius used Remus to get Snape, and even if he just did it out of frustration, after he cooled down he should have gotten Snape if only for Remus's sake. Suppose Snape HAD been killed? What would that have done to Remus? So, in conclusion, I have to agree with Penny. There is more to the Prank that has been portrayed so far. > I don't know if there is more to the prank than we have been told, but I don't think it's fair to Sirius to say he didn't give a thought to the repercussions for Remus. I believe he thought that either Snape would not follow them through the tunnel - he isn't the bravest character in the series, after all - OR - when Snape arrived at the Shrieking Shack he would have found a full grown wolf and two other very large animals and faint dead away. Then one animagi would have to get Snape out of the tunnel while the other restrained the werewolf. Remember that during their years together at Hogwarts, since they became aware of Remus' secret, that have had the worry that someone else would discover what happened at every full moon and cause Remus to be expelled from Hogwarts, or that Dumbledore would find out that they had evolved into unregistered animagi. { I, personally, don't think that would have been so bad, in fact, I think Dumbledore would have been proud of them for taking the initiative and trying to protect Remus each month). Snape, according to the book, had been following them around, or watching from a distance and noting furtive activities - and being a smart wizard, was probably going to draw his own conclusions pretty soon. I believe it was in a fit of impatience that Sirius told him about the tree, but I wonder if he thought that Snape would run to the Headmaster to report what he saw - requiring Dumbledore to perform a memory charm on him, which would make life a bit better for the group, but also relieve their anxiety about Dumbledore's discovery of their animagic powers. Brenda [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue May 7 17:57:47 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 10:57:47 -0700 Subject: The Prank, was Re: [HPforGrownups] HPFGU Digest Number 1843 In-Reply-To: <121.108a0c3e.2a094be4@aol.com> References: <121.108a0c3e.2a094be4@aol.com> Message-ID: <118224730588.20020507105747@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38536 Hi, Tuesday, May 07, 2002, 8:25:24 AM, midgiecat wrote: > I don't know if there is more to the prank than we have been told, but I > don't think it's fair to Sirius to say he didn't give a thought to the > repercussions for Remus. I believe he thought that either Snape would not > follow them through the tunnel - he isn't the bravest character in the > series, after all - OR - when Snape arrived at the Shrieking Shack he would > have found a full grown wolf and two other very large animals and faint dead > away. Then one animagi would have to get Snape out of the tunnel while the > other restrained the werewolf. I don't like Snape, but I've never seen him as a coward, either, fainting at the sight of something unexpected . Snape may be mean, angry, a former DE and out for revenge, but not brave? I have to admit to not focusing on him too much, when reading the books, do if I missed scenes proving that Snape is not very brave, I'll take it all back . > I believe it was in a fit of impatience that Sirius told him about the tree, > but I wonder if he thought that Snape would run to the Headmaster to report > what he saw - requiring Dumbledore to perform a memory charm on him, which > would make life a bit better for the group, but also relieve their anxiety > about Dumbledore's discovery of their animagic powers. Would Dumbledore really perform a memory charm on a student who found out about the tree? And should he? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue May 7 18:13:42 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 18:13:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore casting memory charms? (Was: The Prank, ) In-Reply-To: <118224730588.20020507105747@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38537 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne wrote: > > I believe it was in a fit of impatience that Sirius told him about the tree, > > but I wonder if he thought that Snape would run to the Headmaster to report > > what he saw - requiring Dumbledore to perform a memory charm on him, which > > would make life a bit better for the group, but also relieve their anxiety > > about Dumbledore's discovery of their animagic powers. > > Would Dumbledore really perform a memory charm on a student > who found out about the tree? > > And should he? I definitely don't think he should, but then I'm with the camp that thinks the WW's casual use of memory charms on Muggles is extremely wrong. Nor do I think Dumbledore would've done it. After all, he could've used a memory charm to make Snape forget all about the Prank, but he didn't. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From ProfSnapeFan at aol.com Tue May 7 18:15:07 2002 From: ProfSnapeFan at aol.com (ProfSnapeFan at aol.com) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 14:15:07 -0400 Subject: Snape Coward?Re: The Prank, was Re: [HPforGrownups] HPFGU Digest Number 1843 Message-ID: <1738F955.00DE6452.3AFF15D7@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38538 In a message dated Tue, 7 May 2002 2:06:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, Susanne writes: >Snape may be mean, angry, a former DE and out for revenge, >but not brave? > >I have to admit to not focusing on him too much, when >reading the books, do if I missed scenes proving that Snape >is not very brave, I'll take it all back . I will agree without question that Snape isn't a nice guy (though he's still my favorite character) but I have never thought of him as cowardly either - though if something in the book disputes that I will take it into consideration. I would think to be a spy against Voldemort however would require great courage, the consequences if caught would surely be painful as well as fatal. He did it once before and it appears he's willing to do it again (making reference to the end of Book 4). Just my two cents of input anyway on the topic of Snape's bravery. And I wouldn't be surprised if there's still more to the infamous prank that we haven't heard yet. Joy From Edblanning at aol.com Tue May 7 20:41:49 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 16:41:49 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dawn breaks in the Garden (was Midnight...)/Dementor's Kiss Message-ID: <7f.25c33a00.2a09960d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38539 Good. We've got that settled then. A good week's work! Anyone coming down to the Three Broomsticks so we can solve the Problem of Evil once and for all over a few butterbeers? ;-) I really just wanted an excuse to post this quote from Walt Whitman, which I came across today: This is what you should do: Love the earth and sun and animals, despise riches, give alms to everyone who asks, stand up for the stupid and the crazy, devote your income and labour to others, hate tryants, argue not concerning God, have patience and indulgence toward the people, re-examine all you have been told in school or church or any book, dismiss what insults your very soul, and your flesh shall become a great poem. Some bits of it remind me strongly of Dumbledore. But before I get a howler from the Mods for being too OT, I'd like to comment on this: Bernadette: >>I'm also uncomfortable with the idea >>that they've chosen a method of social/judicial >punishment where >>they don't actually know the full effects of the >>process, having >>the possibly mistaken assumption that the soul is >>destroyed, when >>it may not be. Amy Z: >Have we done any differently in having a death penalty >in a world where we don't know what happens upon >death? It may just be that the WW concludes that a >Kissed person has lost his/her soul because of the >observed effects-it doesn't mean their theologians >have a more definitive idea of what a soul is and what >becomes of it upon death/being Kissed than Muggles do. Eloise: Good point. In English courts a sentence of death used to be accompanied by the words, 'And may God have mercy on your soul'. In the past, it was thought that we knew: the soul would be judged. I may well be wrong about this, but I thought this was also one of the reasons for witch *burnings*: if the witch was unrepentant, the burning acted as a purification of the soul. It is also why the condemned were accompanied to the scaffold by a priest and why for instance (going back to literature) why Othello was concerned to know that Desdemona had prayed before he murdered her. (I think that's right, although I'm more familiar with Verdi's opera than the play.) The WW seems to accept that death can be a justifed penalty if it is carried out in the pursuit of justice, the aurors being licensed to use the Unforgivables, for example, but do we have any example of judicial killing *in cold blood*, as it were? I don't recall any mention of the death penalty as such in the WW, not for humans anyway. The Dementor's Kiss seems to be regarded as a fate *worse than death*. Many others die in Azkaban, through the effect of the Dementors. This seems to me to be worse than RL execution, at least in the supposedly humane way in which it is carried out in countries such as the US. (Note that I came from a country that does not have the death penalty and that I personally find the idea totally abhorrent. In any circumstances.) This touches both on last week's and this week's discussion topics, I think: the upholding by the wizarding establishment of a manifestly cruel and possibly corrupt judicial system. It is no coincidence that Dumbledore has set his face so resolutely against the use of the Dementors. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doldra at hotmail.com Tue May 7 21:51:55 2002 From: doldra at hotmail.com (bystardust) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 21:51:55 -0000 Subject: Snape Coward? In-Reply-To: <1738F955.00DE6452.3AFF15D7@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38540 --- Joy wrote: > I would think to be a spy against Voldemort however would require > great courage, the consequences if caught would surely be painful > as well as fatal. He did it once before and it appears he's > willing to do it again (making reference to the end of Book 4). I agree. Snape did cross over to the dark side for a while, but it must have taken a lot of bravery and a -lot- of willpower to come back. He probably lives each day in mortal terror of Voldemort and what might happen to him (Snape) if he (Snape) is discovered, and I don't think it's a surprise that he's a complete jerk. It was probably always expected by his family that he would be a Death Eater when he grew up, and that made him bitter; and now that he's left Voldemort, he's even more bitter. I think that living with what he did and what he could have become really bothers him, and he's willing to do pretty much anything to make up for it. I keep having a nagging suspicion, though, that Snape's not as reformed as he seems. In that case, most of my argument would be wrong...but I guess we'll have to wait and see. ;) --Doldra From doldra at hotmail.com Tue May 7 21:36:30 2002 From: doldra at hotmail.com (bystardust) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 21:36:30 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts prep school/Clothing/language/Muggle Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38541 Tex wrote: > Pre-Hogwarts primary education may have to be arranged by a wiz- kid's > family and there may be many ways of doing it: Maybe Molly > home-schools her kids, The Malfoys brought in a tutor/governess > for Draco. Some parents may form a coop school. Some may even > use a house-elf, except for language. While this might be true, it seems a little far-fetched that every single wizarding family in the world is responsible for their own children's education. Then again, I suppose there are a lot of things in the WW that are pretty far-fetched, but it just seems odd to me that there would be secondary but not primary school. Also, not all wizarding families would be able to afford private tutors, and Molly Weasley appears to be so busy already... Tex again: > The movie notwithstanding, the robes in the book cover everything. > One wouldn't see anything they wore under their robes. > The owl from Hogwarts specifies only the robes, not the jackets > and ties we saw in the movie. When the kids are out of the robes, > we do see Muggle clothing I actually wasn't thinking about the movie when I said that. I think I remember a part of the book saying that the students wear their robes over muggle clothes, but I could be way off. After all, Ron shooes Hermione out of the train in the first book so that he and Harry can get into their robes. > The Hogwarts kids not only dress like Muggle teens; they talk like > them. Seems to me there is much more of an interface with the > Muggle world than JKR needs to show us...Probably many Wizards make > their living from services to > Muggles, although it is stricly controled by the MoM. Arthur Weasley bases his entire career on muggles, but he doesn't walk around in muggle clothing. It seems as though even most of the wizards who are very educated in the subject of muggles (not including the ones who are muggle born) are to wrapped up in their *own* world to know everything about the non-wizarding world. That didn't make much sense, but my point is it's strange that the Weasley children (for example) wear muggle clothing around the house while thier parents' wardrobes consist of all robes (in GoF, when Arthur tried to dress as a muggle for the World Cup, the results were...not pretty). You're probably right; maybe, somewhere along the line, it even became a lot more popular for teenage wizards to wear muggle clothing, and the older generation is just behind the times. But then there are also a lot of -really- strict rules that are applied when it comes to muggles finding out about the WW. I agree with your point, though. --Doldra From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Tue May 7 22:39:39 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 22:39:39 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry/Mother's Love In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38542 Cindy wrote: <> Stoned Harry! I love it! ::rustles papers importantly:: Ok, here goes. The proof behind the theory. I've got charts. (shame they aren't on disk, it's easier to follow that way.) I've got citations to a reference book. And, oh yeah, some canon too. *All interpretations of symbols taken from The Dictionary of Symbols, pub. by Penguin, 1994* First, the alchemists started the whole idea of a person *becoming* a philosopher's stone, through some spiritual process; it was one of the things they were into, along with turning metal into gold & developing an elixir of immortality. I don't think it's too far- fetched that JKR might take this fact & twist it into her story; she's done that with other stuff, right? So. The alchemists believed that Mercury + Sulphur = Philosopher's stone. JKR's planted *lots* of symbols around Harry that relate to these two elements. Things associated, alchemically, with sulphur: stag, phoenix, color red, lion With mercury: color green, serpent, unicorn In art, the alchemists showed the creation of the philosopher's stone as a stag & unicorn coming together in a forest. So, I figure James + Lily = living Philosopher's stone (I, for one, will be looking for hints that Harry was conceived in the forbidden forest :--) We know *as canonical fact* that the stag is related to James. If you'd like to go with the heir of Gryffindor combo meal, you can add the color red & the lion. We know *as canonical fact* that the color green is related to Lily (and that it'll be important.) I don't think adding the unicorn is too much of a stretch: unicorn = purity; lily = purity; willow (like in her wand) = purity. And if you want to super-size that combo, you can add that Lily was an heir of Slytherin (remember the wording in CoS was a "deliberate error," JKR says), and that Harry inherited the Parseltongue (serpent connection) through her. There. Bangy enough for you? Complicated enough? That's why I really like this theory, actually. I think it's JKR's style. Plus it would provide the series with a real sense of continuity. ************* Cindy wrote: <> Me, too. In fact, I went through SS & CoS pretty carefully to see where that whole theory came from. And it's not Dumbledore that tells us this: it's Harry, when he's talking to Riddle in the chamber. Dumbledore only says "Your mother died to save you." And this is in answer to the question "Why couldn't Quirrell touch me?", (SS p. 299) not `how did I survive?' I figure this can be interpreted as, Lily died in the attempt to save Harry, but that's not necessarily why he lived. (And I also am quite suspicious that we only have Crouch/Moody's word for it that Harry has survived AK. Maybe V. was up to something completely different that night?) Caroline (Bonus tidbit: Another word for the Philosopher's stone is cinnabar: this means dragon's blood in Persian. Remind anyone of a certain chocolate frog card??) From jdumas at kingwoodcable.com Tue May 7 23:14:35 2002 From: jdumas at kingwoodcable.com (Katze) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 18:14:35 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry/Mother's Love References: Message-ID: <3CD85FDB.D7E03BAA@kingwoodcable.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38543 cmf_usc wrote: > > Ok, here goes. The proof behind the theory. I've got charts. (shame > they aren't on disk, it's easier to follow that way.) I've got > citations to a reference book. And, oh yeah, some canon too. > > *All interpretations of symbols taken from The Dictionary of Symbols, > pub. by Penguin, 1994* > Cindy wrote: > < for Harry's unique ability to survive AK -- that his mothers' love > was so unique that it protected him, and AbsentMinded!Voldemort > forgot all about this.>> I'm also a believer that there's more to Harry surviving the AK curse than the excuse that Lily saved him with her love. Why would it only work for her, and never anyone else? It's ancient magic, that apparently one of the most ruthless wizards has forgotten. Wouldn't you think that with all of V's killing people would do anything to protect their love ones - like learning ancient magic? I just think that if this were really the case, many more people would've survived the AK curse. I love this theory that Harry's the living stone. He also wouldn't actually have to die an early death defeating V either - just give up his immortality, like Flamel did by destroying the stone. Flamel gave up his immortality, because it was the right thing to do to destroy the stone. This way no one else would have the chance to use it to become immortal. If Harry is the living stone, then V will need him to become immortal, and if Harry gave up his immortality, than V will have lost out in that particular venture. -Katze From huntleyl at mssm.org Tue May 7 23:03:30 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 19:03:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Memory Charms References: Message-ID: <012e01c1f61b$69bf9e40$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 38544 *big sigh* End of the year crunch here..you know. I suppose I'll be able to post on a more regular basis once my time here in eternal damnation is spent. Until then I'll continue to reply to "ages" old posts and pray that May Term comes blissfully fast. I'm desperately sorry if anyone is annoyed in my delay in replying or the fact that I am once dredging up topics that are considered ancient history by HPFGU standards. ^_^ Grey Wolf said: >I do agree that taking someone's memories -completely- without his >consentment is equivalent to a rape, although, as I'll explain >latter, it could be necessary and even for his own good in some >cases. And this, my friend, I believe is the exact same place where we diverged on the House Elf topic. I believe that the ability to *choose* is an inherent part of what makes me alive - and memories are all about choices. To me, to wipe a person's memory is more evil than to kill him - in the same way that some people believe that things like torture and the Dementors Kiss are worse than murder. I'm afraid I bristle at the suggestion that something that is the "equivalent to rape" could ever be "for his own good". Perhaps Harry would have been much, MUCH happier if he had been simply given to some young couple in the Muggle world and never bothered about the wizarding world. Or, he could have been given to a wizarding couple and never told who he was -- just lived a normal wizard life. Except for the scar, no one would have been able to recognize him. I would how the news of the scar got out -- I mean, at first, only people who had actually seen Harry would know about it, right? You'd think that if Dumbledore really didn't want Harry getting a big head, he wouldn't have let the entire wizarding world in on his is one distinguishing feature. Anyway, the point is -- we all think it's better that Harry got to find out about his heritage and his magic, right? Even if bad things happened to come along with the good? I guess that's one thing that gets me so upset -- anyone who is arrogant enough to say that someone is not "strong" enough to handle his/her own memories and therefore ought to be removed of them "for his own good" ought to be hung, IMO. *sniffs* Not that I'm endorsing lynching. Grey Wolf: >The star's memory is totally >wiped out, but he realises that and seeks a psiquic to "cure" him. We >discover, however, that his previous self was pretty horrible. The >psiquic (who looks remarkably like a politician from my country and >like Joda of Starwars) tells him: >Psiquic: "Why do you want to remember?" >Schwarzy: "To know who I am" >P: "Our beings are defined by what we do, not by what we remember" Again, the assumption that an individual cannot "handle" his previous actions and thoughts. Personally, I believe we are defined by both what we *do* and what we *did*. For instance, I just finished a rather lengthy report on Malcolm X, whose past -- before he found the "truth" -- was quite..well..evil. But it was still a legitimate part of him. He still *did* those things, and he still had to face the repercussions of them. And, in many instances, his darker days helped him immeasurably in his fight for his version of right. It's like if V suddenly turned good -- he would still be held accountable for his past evils right? Perhaps the character in this movie would have eventually become an awful person again anyway -- not knowing that he was one before. However, if he were told of his previous misdeeds, he would at least have a fighting chance to advert the dominance of that facet of his personality - if he so chose. If we erased from Snape's mind the fact that he was once a Death Eater and the horrible things he must have done, aren't we really setting him up to once again fall into a similar hole? Experience is the key to learning and improving yourself. ^_^ In fact, I happen to have a saying: Some people can learn from other's mistakes; Some people can only learn from their own mistakes; And some people never learn at all. To erase a memory because it is bad, or to prevent the reclaiming of such a memory for the same reason, is to condemn someone to forever fall into the third category. (BTW: I made that particular saying up sometime when I was in the 6th or 7th grade, which is why, you understand, it is rather akward and unpoetic). Grey Wolf: >In other cases, like a muggle seing wizard acts, or a human seing >aliens around us (MIB), for example, it's better for protection of >everyone to wipe that person's memories *of the specific situation.* >Imagine what the poor owner of the camping would go through if he >suddenly realized that magic exists. If he told anyone, he would be >vituperated and ridiculizised in the best of cases, and thought mad >and locked up or even taken by the goverment "for investigation" (in >the typical US-conspiracy-theory fashion) in the worst. And here I completely disagree. I believe it is the right of such a person to rationally consider and divulge is information with responsibility, if he so chooses. And I prefer insanity to having my mind tampered with, thankyouverymuch. Actually, my grandmother says crazy things all the time and *she* gets absolutely everything she wants. Crazy people are unfairly pampered. ^_~ laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From huntleyl at mssm.org Tue May 7 23:16:12 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 19:16:12 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) (Was:: Still Life) References: Message-ID: <013b01c1f61d$2e107700$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 38545 Betsy: >Finally, a chance to respond. I believe Ron is jealous of Harry's >ability for playing Quidditch, inwardly that is. In SS, page 211, >Ron sees himself in the Mirror of Erised. While looking in the >mirror, he states, "I am - I'm wearing the badge like Bill used to - >amd I'm holding the house cup and the Quidditch cup - I'm the >Quidditch captain, too." Both the things Ron sees as his "greatest desire" (and it really is rather disturbing that these are his greatest desires -- the kid really needs some ambition, or at least some imagination) are things that are likely to be attained to his two best friends in the future. While Hermione may not be Head Girl, I'm sure Ron sees her as headed in that direction (as do we, even if we feel it's clich?d) and he also probably envisions Harry as being Quidditch Captain someday. Sort of distressing, eh? We've already seen Ron split with Harry because of envy and Ron split with Hermione because of every little thing under the sun ^_~. Perhaps this is another piece of foreshadowing? laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue May 7 23:35:21 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 23:35:21 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry/Mother's Love In-Reply-To: <3CD85FDB.D7E03BAA@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38546 Katze wrote: > I'm also a believer that there's more to Harry surviving the AK curse > than the excuse that Lily saved him with her love. Why would it only > work for her, and never anyone else? It's ancient magic, that apparently > one of the most ruthless wizards has forgotten. Wouldn't you think that > with all of V's killing people would do anything to protect their love > ones - like learning ancient magic? I just think that if this were > really the case, many more people would've survived the AK curse. Well, you know. You know. You know, it is possible that there was something special about this particular ancient magic that Lily used. Like, um, we know Voldemort was able to find Lily by breaking the Fidelius Curse. Is it possible, just maybe, that the ancient magic was something deliberately embedded in the Fidelius Curse that the Potters performed? Maybe even something the secretkeeper (Peter) didn't know about? Something that Voldemort forgot about not because he is thick but because he wasn't expecting the Potters to use this particular variant of the Fidelius Curse? Oooh, I get all tingly at the idea of there being Fidelius Curse variants. Don't even get me *started.* Also, it makes sense that the Potters and Dumbledore would work up some contingency plan. After all, the secretkeeper (Sirius) was going into hiding, so they knew there was some risk he would be discovered and would divulge their location. So they add this extra little wrinkle (the ancient Love Magic) when they perform the charm. That would go a long way toward explaining why Harry seems to be the only one to benefit from his mother's love. It isn't that Harry is the only one with a mother who loves him. It would be that Harry is the only one saved by his mother after a failed Fidelius Curse. Hey, it's a theory. ;-) > I love this theory that Harry's the living stone. He also wouldn't > actually have to die an early death defeating V either - just give up > his immortality, like Flamel did by destroying the stone. Oh. Oh my. Oh, I don't *like* having Harry just surrender his immortality. I mean, where's the Bang there? He just kind of nods when he realizes the sacrifice he must make, maybe with his eyes tearing up a bit? Ron and Hermione just kind of shrug back at him, because, hey, he gets to live out the rest of his life just like they do, so where's the tragedy in his forfeiture of immortality? It also allows Hagrid (who will die in OoP) and Lupin (who will die in Book 7) to steal Harry's thunder and seriously upstage him. Also, and lean in close for this bit, but I didn't care much when Flammel forfeited immortality. It was kind of dull. I mean, he wasn't really entitled to immortality, and I didn't get the sense that Flammel was doing anything special with it, after all. I mean, I hardly miss the guy. So when Harry forfeits immortality, he can't be around to live a normal wizarding lifespan. He has to Meet His Maker *right then.* Ah, come on. Wouldn't it be better (with "better" being defined as infinitely more Big) to have Harry make the Ultimate Sacrifice and take Voldemort out with him? Cindy (who wants Harry to tangle with Voldemort on a rickety catwalk high over a river of molten lava or something else really, really visual) From huntleyl at mssm.org Tue May 7 23:59:08 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 19:59:08 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups]TBAY: Harry giving up powers? BIGGER AND BANGIER References: Message-ID: <014f01c1f623$2d6a1620$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 38547 In response to Caroline's Stoned theory and all her marvelous information about mercury, sulfur, etc in the role of alchemy: Oh, yes, yes, YES!! I love it. Perfect. Why didn't I think of it? *is quite cross with herself* Cindy said: >It also goes a ways toward explaining why Dumbledore is so secretive >about Harry's past. [...] Answer me this, though. Where did Stoned >Harry's potential for eternal life come from? Is it embodied in his scar? >Does it have something to do with parseltongue, do you think? Is it r >related to the analysis of alchemy you mentioned (which I don't >remember so you might have to repeat)? And Caroline said: >In art, the alchemists showed the creation of the philosopher's stone >as a stag & unicorn coming together in a forest. >So, I figure James + Lily = living Philosopher's stone >(Bonus tidbit: Another word for the Philosopher's stone is cinnabar: >this means dragon's blood in Persian. Remind anyone of a certain >chocolate frog card??) *nearly fall out of her chair in excitement* Meep! Dumbledore, discovering the (12) uses of dragon's blood! What if there's really a 13th use, in which Dumbledore discovered a procedure to create a living philosopher's stone!! Perhaps Trelawney's first prediction was that a Dark Lord with the power of immortality would rise, and a Light Lord with the same power would be needed to defeat him?? So *viola*! Dumbledore helps *create* baby Harry (perhaps magically altering him during Lily's pregnancy or arranging some kind of ritual at his conception -- I don't know) to fight the coming Dark Lord. Perhaps this is why he first started looking into alchemy and dragon's blood to begin with. Oooo...what if Dumbledore created TOM RIDDLE with the potential for immortality because of the prediction about a Dark Lord Trelawney or whomever made (thinking that *Tom* would be the Light Lord), and then was forced to create Harry to fulfill the prophecy and undo the damage he had caused. You know -- a younger Dumbledore, not yet the all-wise, benevolent leader we know today -- but a headstrong man with a buckload of power. He had good *intentions* in creating Riddle -- he wanted to stop this "Dark Lord" from taking over. But he tinkered with the balance of the universe in doing so, and was therefore punished and obligated to perform the terrible magic that made Tom once more -- in order to prevent the fruits of his stupidity and vanity from taking over the world. It was the evil he could inherently see in his creation, young Tom -- even before Tom actually realized it himself, that made him wary of Tom when all the other Hogwarts teachers loved him -- he was suspicious of the hatred he sensed in the boy he made to be a *savior* (wow, that sounds really Star Wars). It's why he goes to so much trouble to help those directly harmed by Tom (Hagrid) and forgive those who let themselves be led into evil by Tom (Snape). It's why he takes such an interest in James and Lily, because he sees in them the potential that he saw in Riddle's parents to create a Living Stone (geez..sort of sounds like a Living Horus..falcon..phoenix..nah.). My guess is that you need the right people and then you need all sort of potions, charms, and the like (some of which use dragon's blood). A very complicated, difficult procedure, anyway. Probably with lots of sacrifice on the parts of all involved. And don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to propose an Evil!Dumbledore here. What I'm proposing is a Dumbledore who made a grave mistake when he was younger and is now desperately trying to make up for it. It's *why* he's the amazingly kind, beneficent person we know today. He's had more of his share of the kind of wrong-doing that turns one into an older, wiser person. Anyway. Do you like it? *grins enthusiastically* I've got all my can(n)ons at the ready -- fire at your own risk. ^_~ laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Tue May 7 23:55:12 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 23:55:12 -0000 Subject: Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6) (Take #1) In-Reply-To: <010601c1f574$2b13e4a0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38548 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > SIRIUS BLACK -- Finally, someone speaks to me. :-) And such an interesting stuff, too. > > Well, I am a serious Sirius fan, and while I don't speak for all of us, I can say that I've not heard it referred to as "just a childish prank" that should be excused on the grounds that Sirius was too young or immature to understand what he was doing. Sorry, I haven't made myself clear. Maybe "harmless prank" would be a better expression of what I see as a wrong idea: somehow saying that either Snape deserved it or at least he should not hold it against Sirius after all those years. Whatever were the relationships between Snape and Black at the time of the Prank, Sirius not only endangered his enemy, he was very irresponsible towards his friend as well. So I don't understand how adult Sirius can take it so lightly. > > > Sirius is seemingly completely unrepentent about The Prank. In every other area of our exposure to Sirius in GoF, I would argue that Sirius has a strong moral grounding (a strong sense of his responsibilities as Harry's godfather, a strong sense of how Crouch, Sr. might have handled family affairs poorly, etc.). So, does he have a blind spot with respect to Snape, or maybe, just possibly, is there more to The Prank than we the readers yet know? > Or maybe he is just unrepentant in general. :-) If I was Ron, I would expect some apology after PoA events. Irene From ProfSnapeFan at aol.com Wed May 8 00:28:58 2002 From: ProfSnapeFan at aol.com (ProfSnapeFan at aol.com) Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 20:28:58 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Snape Coward? Message-ID: <16d.d4914fa.2a09cb4a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38549 In a message dated 5/7/2002 6:21:04 PM Eastern Daylight Time, doldra at hotmail.com writes: > I agree. Snape did cross over to the dark side for a while, but it > must have taken a lot of bravery and a -lot- of willpower to come > back. He probably lives each day in mortal terror of Voldemort and > what might happen to him (Snape) if he (Snape) is discovered, and I > don't think it's a surprise that he's a complete jerk. It was > probably always expected by his family that he would be a Death Eater > when he grew up, and that made him bitter; and now that he's left > Voldemort, he's even more bitter. I think that living with what he > did and what he could have become really bothers him, and he's > willing to do pretty much anything to make up for it. Excellent points. I also attribute part of his bitterness to having his life likely dictated by others, first by his family, then by Voldemort, and now by dumbledore. > I keep having a nagging suspicion, though, that Snape's not as > reformed as he seems. In that case, most of my argument would be > wrong...but I guess we'll have to wait and see. ;) > That would certainly be a twist in the books if he turned out to be a real bad guy. Certainly hope it doesn't happen -- but anythings possible. Joy [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed May 8 01:24:58 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 01:24:58 -0000 Subject: Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6) (Take #1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38550 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "irene_mikhlin" wrote: > > > > Sirius is seemingly completely unrepentent about The Prank. In > every other area of our exposure to Sirius in GoF, I would argue that > Sirius has a strong moral grounding (a strong sense of his > responsibilities as Harry's godfather, a strong sense of how Crouch, > Sr. might have handled family affairs poorly, etc.). So, does he > have a blind spot with respect to Snape, or maybe, just possibly, is > there more to The Prank than we the readers yet know? > > > > Or maybe he is just unrepentant in general. :-) If I was Ron, I would > expect some apology after PoA events. I think sending Ron the owl was the apology. :-) It's not like Sirius is incapable of taking responsibility or feeling guilt. The degree of guilt and responsibility he feels for the Potters' deaths is actually greater than it needs to be. And there are bits in PoA that indicate to me that he feels badly about injuring Ron. But his animosity toward Snape seems to overrule his normal conscience. There's no indication that he feels bad about it at all. Since I love Sirius and want to think well of him, I hope that gets dealt with eventually. From megalynn44 at hotmail.com Wed May 8 01:15:08 2002 From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (Meghan Stancil) Date: Tue, 07 May 2002 21:15:08 -0400 Subject: What if she got hit by a truck? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38551 Neil wrote: It not just sensitivities, but publishers and Warner Brothers that we must worry about. How much will they try to influence Rowlings? What if Rowlings' plans for the books were felt to be too intense for the younger audience? Will she be presured to keep everything at a PG level? Bottom line now is unfortunately the mighty dollar. Neil ~~~~~~~~~~~ I think you are wrong on who has the power here. JKR has it, and I am sure she would have no problem going to another publisher(one who would love to have her) if they did not like her book. They know that her books are money in the bank and will let her write what she wants as long as they get to publish it. Also, about not wanting the last 3 books, do you really think you wouldn't be missing anything if all JKR had written was 1 or even 2 books? NO, JKR is the one writing these books because she is the one with enough talent to make this story(like all the others)turn out better than any of us could have IMAGINED. We can make theories all we want, but the payoff is hardly as good as how she will write it. Besides fanfic won't stop after the 7th book. Wizards live alot longer after scool. Megs _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From visservoldemort at yahoo.com Wed May 8 01:54:18 2002 From: visservoldemort at yahoo.com (visservoldemort) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 01:54:18 -0000 Subject: Soul Survival of Death, as seen by the WW Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38552 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Eric Oppen" wrote: > > Uh...of _course_ the Wizard World believes in the survival of the > soul after > > the body's death! _How_ many ghosts have we met or had mentioned? > > > > I'm one of the hardest-barked skeptics on this subject you will > _ever_ find,> > but meeting real un-live ghosts and having it proven to my > satisfaction that > > they _are_ indeed ghosts would certainly change my mind in a hurry! Not really, after all, it really is simply what you view the "soul" as. I mean, if the soul quantifies all memories, free-will and personality then the soul is what you see in ghosts. But it's also entirely possible that the soul represents something more alongst the lines of the capacity and manner of how an individual changes over time, for instance, take Moaning Myrtle. She died in an unhappy moment for herself, as a teenager, now first, regardless of whether ghosts forms change over time, her mind should have progressed to a adult by this time, according to the "Claudia" Theory mental growth can occur even if physical growth is competely stopped during, or even before, adolescense. However after 50 years we still have an unhappy teenage girl. Secondly, Myrtle, hence her nickname, is prone to displays of oversensitivity and hysterical sobbing beyond all reasonable levels, even during the teenage period. Hence her emotional growth may not only have stopped at the age she died, but at the exact moment she died! At the moment she was killed she had been sobbing and just finishing her crying from Olive Hornsby's comment, she was highly sensitive and, like most people in a sad emotional state, not at all above using sadism to make her feel better. She was also slightly annoyed and prepared to tell off the "boy" she had just heard in the Girl's Bathroom. So she steps out of the stall in this state, stares into the Basilisk's eyes and BANG! dies and all emotional progression and recovery is frozen, never to move forward again. Thereby, according to that logic the soul represents the minds capacity to grow and move on from catastrophe and success. ,VisserVoldemort P.S: The Claudia Theory is in reference to the Vampire Child Claudia in the book Interview with the Vampire, a lovely book of which I would recommend, alongst with it's spectacular sequels, to any HP fan. From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed May 8 11:50:23 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:50:23 -0000 Subject: Use of Memeory Charms (was Re: Dumbledore casting memory charms? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38553 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne wrote: > > > > Would Dumbledore really perform a memory charm on a student > > who found out about the tree? > > > > And should he? > > I definitely don't think he should, but then I'm with the camp that > thinks the WW's casual use of memory charms on Muggles is extremely > wrong. > > Nor do I think Dumbledore would've done it. After all, he could've > used a memory charm to make Snape forget all about the Prank, but he > didn't. > My impression is that in the WW, legitimate use of memory charms is limited (by law or custom) to MoM officials. The other cases we've seen are obviously illegal. In Lockhart's case, the memory charms were used to perform fraud and in Crouch's case, to cover up a very serious crime. There is a concensus in the WW regarding the use of memory charms to conceal manifestations of magic from Muggles. But use of memory charms on fellow wizards is probably not viewed as legitimate. As far as using memory charms on Muggles goes, there is some sense in doing that, under the assumption that Muggles would not be able to live with this knowledge. (It's also a must, in terms of the logic of the story, that Muggles - i.e., the readers - are ignorant of the existence of magic and the WW. Memory charms provide an easy explanation of our ignorance. Question: what's the term for such a literary device?) Naama From doldra at hotmail.com Wed May 8 03:06:33 2002 From: doldra at hotmail.com (bystardust) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 03:06:33 -0000 Subject: Rulebreaking (Sirius and Remus) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38554 Marina wrote: > It's not like Sirius is incapable of taking responsibility or > feeling guilt. The degree of guilt and responsibility he feels for > the Potters' deaths is actually greater than it needs to be. And > there are bits in PoA that indicate to me that he feels badly about > injuring Ron. But his animosity toward Snape seems to overrule his > normal conscience. There's no indication that he feels bad about it > at all. Since I love Sirius and want to think well of him, I hope > that gets dealt with eventually. I agree. When Sirius played The Prank on Snape, his hatred for him was all that was on his mind; much like when he was trying to get at Peter at the end of PoA, even Ron's leg couldn't stop him. I think Sirius' problem is that he gets -too- emotional about things. He's never going to forgive himself for James' and Lily's deaths and when he's really angry he can't think clearly. I've always wondered about why he chokes Harry at the end of PoA, but I guess a lot of that can be attributed to the fact that he's clearly not altogether sane at that point. --- Catlady wrote: > Remus *could* have an entirely selfish reason for disapproval: what > does MoM do to a werewolf who bites a wizard? At the very least, > having to leave Hogwarts. Possibly imprisonment or execution. > > Also, as a fairly mature and thoughtful person, or as a person who > cares about Sirius, he probably thought that Sirius was being a > complete idiot to take so much risk to his Sirius-self (does murder > by use of a werewolf rate a life sentence in Azkaban?) for so little > purpose. I agree, but personally, if I were Remus, I'd disapprove of (and be really bitter about) Sirius' prank because he used -me- to do it. I think that the werewolf issue was (and still is?) probably a pretty sensitive topic with Remus when he was a teenager, especially since it alienated him so much. After all, he had to be led to an abandoned cabin once a month so that he wouldn't kill anyone. The fact that Sirius, one of Remus' best friends, used him and his weakness to amuse himself (by himself I mean Sirius) must have been really difficult to deal with at that age. It probably still gets to him. --Doldra From chetah27 at hotmail.com Wed May 8 04:10:54 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 04:10:54 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts prep school/Clothing/language/Muggle Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38555 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bystardust" wrote: > While this might be true, it seems a little far-fetched that every > single wizarding family in the world is responsible for their own > children's education. Then again, I suppose there are a lot of things > in the WW that are pretty far-fetched, but it just seems odd to me > that there would be secondary but not primary school. Also, not all > wizarding families would be able to afford private tutors, and Molly > Weasley appears to be so busy already... Yes, I have to agree, the whole home-schooling thing doesn't seem as though it would work. I mean, many parents would be too busy to do it themselves/too poor to hire someone, and then you would possibly end up with alot of under-educated wizards running about and that wouldn't be good at all... But then again, it seems to me as though parts of the WW are somewhat old-fashioned. And that -is- how people used to educate their children, by either homeschooling them themselves or hiring a governess. I wonder if they do have primary schools just for wizarding children, but I can't help but doubt that... "bystardust" wrote: That didn't make much sense, but my point is it's strange that the Weasley > children (for example) wear muggle clothing around the house while > thier parents' wardrobes consist of all robes (in GoF, when Arthur > tried to dress as a muggle for the World Cup, the results were...not > pretty). You're probably right; maybe, somewhere along the line, it > even became a lot more popular for teenage wizards to wear muggle > clothing, and the older generation is just behind the times. But then > there are also a lot of -really- strict rules that are applied when > it comes to muggles finding out about the WW. I agree with your > point, though. I always sort of thought that the reason they wore Muggle clothes was because they were kids. Sort of like...well, like it's a becoming a wizard privelage/honor to be able to wear robes and look all magical and mystical all the time. Didn't Ron's older brothers wear robes? And I don't think the books have ever mentioned any adult wizard wearing Muggle clothes unless they were trying to go in disguise. And perhaps that's why the slightly older generations can't quite get the hang of dressing "normaly", because it's been so long since they've had to and the styles have changed- and perhaps they just find it slightly insulting to have to do so? "aldrea279" From naama_gat at hotmail.com Wed May 8 12:30:14 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 12:30:14 -0000 Subject: Ron's Envy (was Re: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy In-Reply-To: <013b01c1f61d$2e107700$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38556 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > > Both the things Ron sees as his "greatest desire" (and it really is rather disturbing that these are his greatest desires -- the kid really needs some ambition, or at least some imagination) are things that are likely to be attained to his two best friends in the future. While Hermione may not be Head Girl, I'm sure Ron sees her as headed in that direction (as do we, even if we feel it's clich?d) and he also probably envisions Harry as being Quidditch Captain someday. > > Sort of distressing, eh? We've already seen Ron split with Harry because of envy and Ron split with Hermione because of every little thing under the sun ^_~. Perhaps this is another piece of foreshadowing? > > laura > > If it is a foreshadowing, then it is a foreshadowing of Ron *getting over* his envy. Remember, Ron didn't want to return to the mirror and tried to dissuade Harry from doing so. It seems, then, that he was much less vulnerable to the mirror's fascination than Harry - which I understand to mean that his "deepest, most desperate desire" was a lot less desperate than Harry's was. This foreshadowing has, in fact, already been fulfilled. Ron did reach an "envy crisis", and, indeed, got over it without great damage being done. Isn't it the convention that once a crisis is overcome, it doesn't return? That the problem, once it has surfaced and been faced, is resolved? Naama From pennylin at swbell.net Wed May 8 13:53:48 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 08:53:48 -0500 Subject: Ron's Envy References: Message-ID: <011901c1f697$c75733c0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38557 Hi -- Briefly -- Naama said, with regard to Ron's envy (as possibly foreshadowed by the Mirror of Erised): <<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>> I take this to mean that you are referring to his fight with Harry over entry into the Triwizard Tournament as Ron's "envy crisis." If so, then Ron's envy is not completely resolved after he & Harry make up. Remember Ron's reaction to learning that leprachaun gold disappears? He's still envious of Harry's wealth, if not his fame per se. No, I would say that Ron's envy issues are not yet fully resolved. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com Wed May 8 15:40:03 2002 From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (ltg3asu) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:40:03 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry/Mother's Love Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38558 Katze wrote: "If Harry is the living stone, then V will need him to become immortall, and if Harry gave up his immortality, than V will have lost out in that particular venture." *Yikes!* If Harry is the living stone, a prospect which is becoming more and more plausible with each new wonderfully researched post, then what will Voldemort using his (Harry's) blood in the spell to create himself a new body? As the living stone, is Harry's blood comparable to the elixir of life? This, if viable, could put a whole new spin on Dumbledore's hint of a triumphant smile at the end of GoF.To me, it makes sense that by using Harry's blood, if he (Harry) is the living stone, then Voldemort may have attained immortality again. BUT! If the state Voldemort was in when he worked the spell was merely a living death, a half life as described to be possessed by those who drink unicorn's blood, then maybe Harry's life giving blood (a very Christian metaphor) canceled out the half life of Voldemort, giving him his humanity, therefore his mortality again, not simply by virtue of Harry being a mortal, but because Harry is the living stone! From draco382 at yahoo.com Wed May 8 13:31:35 2002 From: draco382 at yahoo.com (draco382) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:31:35 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts prep school/Clothing/language/Muggle Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38559 > I always sort of thought that the reason they wore Muggle clothes was > because they were kids. Sort of like...well, like it's a becoming a > wizard privelage/honor to be able to wear robes and look all magical > and mystical all the time. Didn't Ron's older brothers wear robes? > And I don't think the books have ever mentioned any adult wizard > wearing Muggle clothes unless they were trying to go in disguise. And > perhaps that's why the slightly older generations can't quite get the > hang of dressing "normaly", because it's been so long since they've > had to and the styles have changed- and perhaps they just find it > slightly insulting to have to do so? > I agree with aldrea279, but in addition, I think the reason the younger generation has caught on with muggle clothes while many of the older generation are still fumbling is because of the comment Ron made when the trio are in Hagrid's hut after Quidditch practice in Cos. I don't have my book with me for a page number, but this is when Ron is puking slugs. During the discussion over the mudblood comment, Ron explains that if wizards hadn't married muggles, they [wizards] would have died out. Ron seems to be implying that this is a relatively new phenomenon, so perhaps when wizards married muggles, they began absorbing certain parts of muggle culture as well, namely clothing, names, etc... And, like most "new fangled ideas" it looks like the younger generation just caught onto it quicker than the older generation, who were probably brought up in the more traditional wizarding world. There have been enough examples of this in our own world...take the advent of the "internet" or "email" for example... ~P From sopranoham at yahoo.com Wed May 8 14:01:28 2002 From: sopranoham at yahoo.com (Soprano Ham) Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 07:01:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry/Mother's Love In-Reply-To: <3CD85FDB.D7E03BAA@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: <20020508140128.10151.qmail@web13006.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38560 Hi, --- Katze wrote: If Harry is the living stone, then V will > need him to become > immortal, and if Harry gave up his immortality, than > V will have lost > out in that particular venture. > > -Katze > My only problem with this is: how could harry give up/renounce this part of himself? How could this be done other than through death? If he died, Voldemort would still have his blood in him. It seems to me that renouncing aspects of your magical being is just as impossible as me renouncing my skin, or my lungs. Thoughts? Sop __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health.yahoo.com From dicentra at xmission.com Wed May 8 17:45:59 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 17:45:59 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38561 <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< Dicentra looks at the subject line, then at the messages beneath it, then at the subject line again... Something is very wrong with all this. If this is a TBAY thread, then where is the water? The SHIPs, and other flotation devices? The CARPing? The ACRONYMS, fer peetsake! Amy said she was de-TBAYing this thread, but I bet it didn't even get mud on her doormat when she brought in inside. People! Chop! Chop! If you're gonna TBAY, you gotta get your feet wet! Dicentra resolves to, er, resolve this problem by grabbing the two-man kayak abandoned the Fourth Man crew and bringing it near the shore. Then she runs over to Stoned!Harry, gets a handful of his robes, and with surprisingly little effort drags him to the kayak. "Look," she says to Stoned!Harry. "Yeh gotta have a boat to use that TBAY prefix. Otherwise, there's no reason to use it." Stoned!Harry, looking a bit dazed, doesn't seem to understand. Dicentra grabs his right leg and shoves it in the kayak's opening. Stoned!Harry shifts his weight into the kayak, and upon feeling the vessel move into the bay, quickly swings his other leg out in front of the kayak. To Dicentra's surprise, his left foot doesn't sink into the water. Stoned!Harry doesn't seem to notice anything unusual about this, and he pulls his right leg from the kayak and begins to stride across the water, still looking as if he'd just awakened from a long nap. Dicentra, realizing that there needs to be a point to all this, runs over to a can(n)on sitting on the shore and takes careful aim at Stoned!Harry, who is now standing about 30 yards out, watching some fish swim under his feet. <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< <"((>< Cindy responds to Katze: > Oh, I don't *like* having Harry just surrender his immortality. I > mean, where's the Bang there? He just kind of nods when he realizes > the sacrifice he must make, maybe with his eyes tearing up a bit? > Ron and Hermione just kind of shrug back at him, because, hey, he > gets to live out the rest of his life just like they do, so where's > the tragedy in his forfeiture of immortality? So when Harry forfeits immortality, he can't be around to live a normal wizarding lifespan. He has to Meet His Maker *right then.* > Dicentra responds: Oh yes, he most definintely has to die at the end. And JKR has alreadly told us how it's going down (at least I think she has). Remember when Harry and Ron were making up predictions in GoF and how Harry inadvertently predicted the three tasks? Well, the last prediction Harry made was his own beheading. And, as someone pointed out last time I pointed this out, Ron and Harry were later playing with a couple of the twins' trick wands in McGonagall's class: Harry's had turned into a rubber fish and Ron's was a tin parrot. Ron beheaded Harry's fish with his parrot. Is that Bangy or what? Not only does Harry have to die to take Voldemort out, but it will end up being by Ron's hand. (Whether it's good!Ron or evil!Ron I cannot say at this time.) And his head comes off, too! BANG! > > Cindy (who wants Harry to tangle with Voldemort on a rickety catwalk > high over a river of molten lava or something else really, really > visual) We can do that, as long as Harry eventually loses his head in the process. Willingly. Like Sidney Carton and all that. <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< Dicentra calls out to Stoned!Harry: "Yo! Harry! Watch your neck, there!" He waves cheerily to Dicentra; it's obvious he doesn't get it. Dicentra looks around for more can(n)ons to aim at him, but they all seem to be languishing in a recently purchased manor in Scotland. Dicentra adjusts her FEATHERBOA and stomps off, disgusted, while Stoned!Harry wanders aimlessly across the bay. <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< --Dicentra, who really likes fish From siskiou at earthlink.net Wed May 8 18:14:17 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 11:14:17 -0700 Subject: Ron's envy In-Reply-To: <013b01c1f61d$2e107700$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> References: <013b01c1f61d$2e107700$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: <32312133162.20020508111417@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38562 Hi, Tuesday, May 07, 2002, 4:16:12 PM, Laura wrote: > Both the things Ron sees as his "greatest desire" (and it really is > rather disturbing that these are his greatest desires -- the kid really > needs some ambition, or at least some imagination) He's eleven years old! What do people expect? I wonder what Harry's greatest desire would be, if he still had his parents? Hermione's? At that age kids don't usually have very complicated desires. > are things that are > likely to be attained to his two best friends in the future. While > Hermione may not be Head Girl, I'm sure Ron sees her as headed in that > direction (as do we, even if we feel it's clichd) and he also probably > envisions Harry as being Quidditch Captain someday. > Sort of distressing, eh? We've already seen Ron split with Harry > because of envy and Ron split with Hermione because of every little > thing under the sun ^_~. Perhaps this is another piece of foreshadowing? Maybe his desires have changed by now? Maybe this is Ron's big test? Will he choose to split up with his friends over something that he desires, but they get? Or will he not? And I'm not really sure that Ron split with Harry because of envy. IMO he did it because he thought Harry had lied to him. Envy may have been a part of it, but not entirely. I wonder if we'll see the mirror of Erised again in future books. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From siskiou at earthlink.net Wed May 8 18:30:26 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 11:30:26 -0700 Subject: Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione Message-ID: <109313102184.20020508113026@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38563 Hi, reading the comments from several people who seem to feel pretty strongly that Ron will betray Harry's trust in the future and join the dark side, made me wonder. It sounds like some people would welcome this development, and I'd like to find out why . Is it, so Ron is out of the way and Harry and Hermione can be "a couple"? Is it because you really dislike Ron as a character? The story would be more interesting to see him bad or dead. He doesn't deserve to be part of the trio because of his flaws (temper, envy)? He's the present day equivalent of Pettigrew and therefor *has* to go bad? There are most likely a million reasons I haven't considered, but I like all three of the kid main characters and would truly hate this kind of development, so I'd like to see some other opinions :) Especially since it looks like book 5 will not come out any time soon to see how things develop in canon. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From blpurdom at yahoo.com Wed May 8 19:00:47 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 19:00:47 -0000 Subject: Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione In-Reply-To: <109313102184.20020508113026@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38564 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne wrote: > Hi, > > reading the comments from several people who seem to feel > pretty strongly that Ron will betray Harry's trust in the > future and join the dark side, made me wonder. > > It sounds like some people would welcome this development, > and I'd like to find out why . > > Is it, so Ron is out of the way and Harry and Hermione can > be "a couple"? I'm guessing that's part of it. For the H/H ship, he's rather inconvenient. > Is it because you really dislike Ron as a character? This is also true for some folks. Oddly enough, I just posted something about this on my list about my fanfic, but my post was actually harking back to canon, so here's part of that post with the stuff about fanfic deleted: Remember, in the first book, he [Ron] was the one with the strength to walk away from the Mirror of Erised (which SHOWED him as Head Boy and Quidditch captain), while Harry wanted to keep going back and stare at his family. [snipped reference to fanfic] I think it also illustrated a good point about Ron's personality; as much as folks say they fear him going bad because of his ambition, while he likes to grouse about being in his brothers' and Harry's shadows, he also knows that friendship and doing what's right are more important than being in the spotlight (as in sacrificing himself for Harry and Hermione to get across McGonagall's chess board) and I believe this early clue to his personality is JKR's way of showing that Ron will never be a Peter-Pettigrew-style traitor. > The story would be more interesting to see him bad or dead. I certainly don't agree with this idea, but I've seen folks say it would be interesting to see Harry deal with the loss of Ron/Hermione/Hagrid/Dumbledore, etc., so this is hardly a new idea. > He doesn't deserve to be part of the trio because of his > flaws (temper, envy)? > He's the present day equivalent of Pettigrew and therefor > *has* to go bad? I think my comments above are an adequate, if brief, rebuttal of these proposed ideas. > There are most likely a million reasons I haven't > considered, but I like all three of the kid main characters > and would truly hate this kind of development, so I'd like > to see some other opinions :) Sorry I couldn't offer up other opinions! Think of it more as getting in a couple of shots first before the Ron-bashers start sharpening their quills... --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb Get your Triangle Prophecy Cookie here! http://www.fictionalley.org/fictionalleypark/forums/showthread.php? s=&threadid=8706 From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Wed May 8 19:04:19 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 19:04:19 -0000 Subject: TBY:Stoned Harry/Dumbledore&dragon's blood Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38565 Cindy wrote: <> Uh-oh. Cindy, don't take this the wrong way or anything, but, well, I want a surviving Harry. I just kinda like the kid. I guess I'm just not as Tough as you ::grabs lifejacket; looks nervously towards the rail of the Big Bang Destroyer:: Thank goodness Dicentra's given us a kayak now, `cause that water looks awfully cold . I mean, you're probably right. I remember posting myself on the symbolism surrounding Harry as a Christ figure. But that doesn't mean I like it. Ok, how about this for a Bangy scenario? In order for Harry to give up his immortality, he must go through a dangerous, life-threatening procedure of some sort. Something even Dumbledore's nervous about doing. Then Harry gets captured by Voldemort. Harry decides to do the procedure himself, knowing he may die in the process, to keep V. from getting immortality. It's all very risky, but he succeeds. Then, somebody frees him (maybe Lupin, getting killed by Wormtail's silver hand in the process??). Now Harry still has to defeat Voldemort, `cause V's ticked, you know, and wants him dead; but he doesn't have the backup of being immortal. But, *sigh*, really, Dicentra's dashed my hopes, reminding me about the beheading scenes in GoF: <> Oh, crap. You know, you've got something there. It would definitely be Bangy. And remember in PoA, when Harry and Ron got up together from the table of 13? Yep, I can see Ron bringing about Harry's death & dying right after Laura wrote: << Dumbledore, discovering the (12) uses of dragon's blood! What if there's really a 13th use, in which Dumbledore discovered a procedure to create a living philosopher's stone!!>> :jumps up and down: That's what I think!! It answers the question of "what did Dumbledore do to be considered Flamel's alchemy partner, since Flamel had already made the Elixir of Life by the time Dumbledore was born?" Cinnibar=philosopher's stone=dragon's blood=Harry . Laura: << Oooo...what if Dumbledore created TOM RIDDLE with the potential for immortality because of the prediction about a Dark Lord Trelawney or whomever made (thinking that *Tom* would be the Light Lord),>> I like this; your `younger, less wise, but still not evil Dumbledore' idea. I mean, Dumbledore's made mistakes here and there, but to seem real, I think he needs a big one in his past. This would be good. Laura: << and then was forced to create Harry to fulfill the prophecy and undo the damage he had caused.>> Umm I like this on an intellectual, theoretical level. But for Harry's sake, I hope it's not true. Wouldn't that just be awful? Harry's spent all this time wishing for a normal life. To find out that he was socially engineered, that the loss of his parents and childhood and everything was Dumbledore's fault that would just be terrible for Harry. But (grins evilly) it would be interesting fiction, wouldn't it? Caroline --really liking Stoned Harry, but tired of him eating everything in the kayak From sandirs at hotmail.com Wed May 8 19:09:22 2002 From: sandirs at hotmail.com (Sandi Steinberg) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 15:09:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron's Envy (was Re: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38566 >--- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Laura Huntley" wrote: > > > > Both the things Ron sees as his "greatest desire" (and it really is >rather disturbing that these are his greatest desires -- the kid >really needs some ambition, or at least some imagination) .... Laura has hit the nail on the head! Ron is a kid, and his wishes are juvenile, but they also reflect a desire to perform at the high benchmark established by his older brothers: Percy and Bill were both Head Boys and the twins are varsity quidditch bludgers. Let's remember that Ron is all of 11 years old at this time! His wishes, however, are true to what he reveals about himself early in the first book when he tells Harry about all his older brother's outstanding achievements at Hogwarts. Naama noted that "Ron didn't want to return to the mirror and >tried to dissuade Harry from doing so. It seems, then, that he was >much less vulnerable to the mirror's fascination than Harry - which I >understand to mean that his "deepest, most desperate desire" was a >lot less desperate than Harry's was. I think this is an excellent observation. Ron worries about not measuring up to the males in his family, and for a while, Harry's fame and athletic success seem to feed Ron's feelings of inadequacy. However, his friendship with and feelings for Harry triumph. Furthermore, he does not seem to get along badly with any of his sibs, although, like the twins, he likes to poke fun at Percy's self-righteousness and priggishness. Also, Ron know he is loved by his parents and sibs (yeah, even if Mom makes dry sandwiches, always knits him a maroon sweater, and the family isn't wealthy), he has always known who and what he is. Harry, on the other hand, has led a loveless, cheerless life. He's been victimized by his aunt and uncle, and been bullied by Dudley & Co. Since his eleventh birthday, his whole life has turned around, magically and for the better. However, a lot of the underpinnings of his life have been torn away. Most importantly, he now knows that his parents didn't die in an accident, that they were murdered in cold blood, and he is going through a lot of emotional turmoil. He now realizes that the Dursleys were not only cruel to him but that they have lied to him all these years about his parents' deaths and his own survival. The visions in Erised give him a lot of comfort, and, for the first time, he sees his physical self in his father's build and dark hair and in his mother's green eyes, along with other relatives, many of whom have a shared resemblance. Erised has given a lonely orphan the sense of self he's never had. Of course he's more easily seduced by the mirror than is Ron. Realizing this, Dumbledore removes the mirror before Harry is drawn into his rapturous but UNreal world at a time that the wizarding world--his tangible world--is offering him a real, meaningful future. Sandi Being able to see his parents brings not only joy but, I suspect, a sense of love and belonging to Harry's life. Ron has always belonged to a large family and can see his corporeal self reflected in his coloring (all the Weasley redheads) and tall, lean build (Percy and Bill, esp.). The first > > > >If it is a foreshadowing, then it is a foreshadowing of Ron *getting >over* his envy. Remember, Ron didn't want to return to the mirror and >tried to dissuade Harry from doing so. It seems, then, that he was >much less vulnerable to the mirror's fascination than Harry - which I >understand to mean that his "deepest, most desperate desire" was a >lot less desperate than Harry's was. >This foreshadowing has, in fact, already been fulfilled. Ron did >reach an "envy crisis", and, indeed, got over it without great damage >being done. Isn't it the convention that once a crisis is overcome, >it doesn't return? That the problem, once it has surfaced and been >faced, is resolved? > > >Naama > _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From pennylin at swbell.net Wed May 8 19:30:56 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 14:30:56 -0500 Subject: Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione References: <109313102184.20020508113026@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <016d01c1f6c6$e05b6c90$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38567 Hi -- Actually supposed to be doing something entirely different but feel the need to chime in here briefly -- Susanne posed a series of questions relating to Ron, mostly it appears soliciting opinions from people who are not necessarily Ron fans. I fall into that category, so I'll have a go quickly: <<<.>>>>>>>>> I wanted to again emphasize that I rarely see very many people who assert that Ron *will* betray Harry knowingly or *will* join the Dark side. I'm certainly strongly on record as saying that is is a *possibility* that Ron *could* betray Harry *unintentionally.* There's a huge difference though in saying that you believe Ron will join the Dark side of his own accord and saying that you think there's a chance that Ron's problems with Imperius Curse are a possible set-up for an unwitting betrayal. I also think there's a *chance* that a love interest (Hermione) who spurned him for Harry might cause Ron to take rash action. Ron is an emotional person after all. Again though, I see this as more likely just a rash deed that goes awry rather than a calculated betrayal. I'm not a huge Ron fan, but even I don't see too terribly much to indicate that he's *evil* or that he would knowingly go against his friends. Indeed, his loyalty is fairly strong by all accounts. <<>>>> Not from the perspective of this strong H/H shipper. I'd much, much rather see H/H get together romantically even though Ron's alive & well & on the side of Good & Light. IMO, it's not a prerequisite at all for Ron to be dead or teamed up against the good guys for H/H to become a couple. It'd be great actually if Ron & Hermione did date for a time & realize how completely & utterly wrong they are for each other (the "greatest literary mismatch of all time" as Jim F put it recently) & break up amicably. I do think Hermione has her heart set on Harry rather than Ron, and I think a love triangle presents all sorts of interesting plot points. Ron's not my favorite character by any means, and I think he's absolutely, positively all wrong for Hermione. But, he's not just an inconvenience. He is their best friend after all. :--) <<>>>>> I do dislike Ron more & more. But, Book 5 could totally change that. I just didn't like him much in PoA or GoF. I don't necessarily *want* to see bad things happen to him though. I just recognize that there's *potential* for this, and I don't see why voicing these potentialities or noting his flaws is such a bad thing. <<< He doesn't deserve to be part of the trio because of his flaws (temper, envy)?>>>>>>>> Nope. I just like it when people realize he has flaws. Just like Harry. Just like Hermione. I do think Ron's flaws make him at least slightly more susceptible to manipulation by the Dark side. And, Ron's flaws happen to bother *me* more than those of some of the other characters, like Harry & Hermione for example. But, I don't have to like all the characters. I imagine most of us have at least one character that we dislike or would reform somewhat if we could. Ron is that character for me. :--) <<<<<>>>>>> I don't think he's anything like Pettigrew actually. I somewhat buy the Lupin/Hermione parallel, but prefer the Sirius/Hermione parallel really. I don't see an obvious parallel for Ron though. It's certainly not Pettigrew. I also really like the Lily/Hermione parallel that someone (Rohit?) postulated last month. There's not a perfect parallel for Hermione either though -- she's some of Lupin, Sirius & Lily I think. Penny (who doesn't like Ron but doesn't necessarily want him dead or Evil either) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ambiradams at hotmail.com Wed May 8 18:50:32 2002 From: ambiradams at hotmail.com (Ambir Adams) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 11:50:32 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38568 I'm usually a Lurker here but I just had to comment on your question. >From: Susanne > reading the comments from several people who seem to feel > pretty strongly that Ron will betray Harry's trust in the > future and join the dark side, made me wonder. > > It sounds like some people would welcome this development, > and I'd like to find out why . > > Is it, so Ron is out of the way and Harry and Hermione can > be "a couple"? Ha ha how petty some people are to want him to join because of that. I say no thats not a reason. > > Is it because you really dislike Ron as a character? Nah, he's okay, pretty cool when he's not being a butthead. So no that's not a reason > The story would be more interesting to see him bad or dead. I actually think he would make a really cool villian, but that's just me. But no thats not what I think why he would join Voldie > He doesn't deserve to be part of the trio because of his > flaws (temper, envy)? No that's not right, he creates balance among the trio. So no that's not a good reason > He's the present day equivalent of Pettigrew and therefor > *has* to go bad? No I think Neville is more like Pettigrew then Ron and I don't think Neville would join the dark side. So thats not a reason for me. Here is my reason if why I think Ron could switch loyalties, not saying he will, but very well could. I think Ron would join the dark side becuase of Jealousy. Harry has everything, Voldie could very well promise Ron everything if he joined is order. As we all have seen Ron is controlled by his Jealousy, He believed that Harry put his own name in the goblet and he was so jealous of that, and many other things in book 4. So he would join Voldie cause he doesn't feel adequate and Voldie will promise to give him what he wants. Ryoko _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From siskiou at earthlink.net Wed May 8 20:01:11 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 13:01:11 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8318548151.20020508130111@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38569 Hi, Wednesday, May 08, 2002, 11:50:32 AM, Ambir wrote: > So he would > join > Voldie cause he doesn't feel adequate and Voldie will promise to give > him > what he wants. See, this reasoning doesn't work for me at all. Do you truly see Ron make that kind of deal with LV, with his eyes open, knowingly participating in killing Harry, for fame and money? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From siskiou at earthlink.net Wed May 8 20:07:36 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 13:07:36 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione In-Reply-To: <016d01c1f6c6$e05b6c90$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> References: <109313102184.20020508113026@earthlink.net> <016d01c1f6c6$e05b6c90$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: <165318933527.20020508130736@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38570 Hi, Wednesday, May 08, 2002, 12:30:56 PM, Penny wrote: > I just recognize that there's > *potential* for this, and I don't see why voicing these potentialities > or noting his flaws is such a bad thing. Just wanted to comment on this part real quick. Of course it's not a bad thing! I just want to understand it better . While I really like Ron, I'm also able to see his flaws. And my impression of some people really disliking Ron and wanting him gone doesn't come from this list only, but from other forums. There's some pretty strong hate out there for Ron, of the kind I haven't seen expressed for the other kid characters (including Draco Malfoy) and I was just interested in hearing what other people think the reason might be. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From cindysphynx at comcast.net Wed May 8 20:21:07 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 20:21:07 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38571 Dicentra wrote: > If this is a TBAY thread, then where is the water? The SHIPs, and > other flotation devices? The CARPing? The ACRONYMS, fer >peetsake! ::hangs head in shame:: Oh dear. As usual, Dicentra is right. This thread got off to such a pitiful TBAY start that it is almost a disgrace to the uniform. It's a TBAY pretender, an imposter, a wannabe. Sheeze, no one even *tried* to brandish a paddle at anyone, for crying out loud. Something is just wrong here. Terribly wrong. It's a problem that can be fixed, though, isn't it? Caroline is the Captain, and I'm sure she'll take control of this thing before it crashes into the rocks. If you want my Always Humble opinion, I think I know why this thread headed in the wrong direction. Dicey, who is infatuated with fish, wrote: <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< That's where we got off track, I think. With all due respect, Dicey, I think it works *much* better this way: ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> Yes. A minor course correction is just what we need. *************************** OK, you guys are starting to *scare* me just a bit. I mean, it's one thing to just imagine having Harry die. Anyone can do that. I've done it many times, although not as often as I've imagined Hagrid's demise. ;-) But now you guys have found actual *canons* for Stoned!Harry! If you look closely, however, there are two additional canons for Stoned!Harry. And I promise you, once the roar of the crowd dies down, we'll need something *much* bigger than a two-man kayak to house the legions of rabid Stoned!Harry believers. Immortal Stoned!Harry, according to Dicentra, can walk on water. And, pray tell, what was the very first thing Harry saw in the teacup in his very first Divination Class? *A Cross*! It was a crooked (some might even say Old Rugged) Cross! And, my friends, what did Ron see when he looked into Harry's cup? Ah, you don't remember, do you? Let me refresh your recollection: "[T]hat looks like an animal . . . yeah, if that was its head . . . it looks like a hippo . . . no, a sheep." A sheep? A young sheep? A *lamb*, I daresay? Yes, it all adds up. Stoned!Harry is destined to die a death as a sacrifical lamb to spare others from an awful fate. A death by . . . uh . . . by decapitation. Um, maybe JKR will think better of that particular means of Harry's demise. There's still time for something a little less gruesome, I think. Caroline wrote (about Ron and Harry rising from the table together): >And remember in PoA, when Harry and Ron got up together >from the table of 13? Yep, I can see Ron bringing about Harry's >death & dying right after Well, we want to stay right on canon here, so Ron and Harry have to die *together*, not, er, sequentially. So how on earth can Ron and Harry die together, have Harry be beheaded, and have Voldemort wind up in the soup with them? Ya got me. Anyone? --really liking Stoned Harry, but tired of him eating everything in >the kayak Don't take this the wrong way or anything Caroline, but do you think maybe you could spruce things up in the kayak a bit? The last Captain was a sweetie, but between you and me, she was a bit of a SYCOPHANT who spent more time in hand-wringing than in your basic nautical maintenance. Keep that under your hat, though, will you? Cindy (who thinks TAGSWATCH or their new apprentice Brady should fire up the acronym generator) From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Wed May 8 19:53:38 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (Heidi Rugg) Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 15:53:38 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione References: Message-ID: <000e01c1f6ca$0f4e4920$6401a8c0@barefoot> No: HPFGUIDX 38572 I believe that JKR is deliberately setting up Ron so that he can go "either way" (meaning good or bad). What fun would it be if we **really** knew which way it would turn out? I think we also need to take a look at the Polyjuice problem...sometimes people are **literally** not who they seem to be! I had no clue that Mad-Eye was Crouch. What if Ron tries to frame Neville? Or Neville Ron? I can see all these possibilities are very possible and it's maddening! Barb writes: >>I believe this early clue to his personality is JKR's way of showing that Ron will never be a Peter-Pettigrew-style traitor.<< Perhaps...but in Marauder times, they were suspicious of Lupin that he might be the traitor. Then we all thought it was Sirius, but, of course, it was Pettigrew. The point is, we are going to need to be on our toes! JKR always finds a twist, though. Hmmmm... Heidi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ambiradams at hotmail.com Wed May 8 20:15:25 2002 From: ambiradams at hotmail.com (Ambir Adams) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 13:15:25 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38573 >From: Susanne >Subject: Re: [HPforGrownups] Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione > >See, this reasoning doesn't work for me at all. > >Do you truly see Ron make that kind of deal with LV, with >his eyes open, knowingly participating in killing Harry, for >fame and money? Voldie would offer him the world so to speak, and we know Ron. He is very emotional, and sometimes we do things that we totally regreat when we are hurt, wronged and jealous. So he very well could do that. I mean I don't want him to do that. It's just anything is possible. Ryoko-- _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From doldra at hotmail.com Wed May 8 20:35:26 2002 From: doldra at hotmail.com (bystardust) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 20:35:26 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts prep school/Clothing/language/Muggle Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38574 aldrea279 wrote: > But then again, it seems to me as though parts of the WW are somewhat > old-fashioned. And that -is- how people used to educate their > children, by either homeschooling them themselves or hiring a > governess. I wonder if they do have primary schools just for > wizarding children, but I can't help but doubt that... It's true--the WW does seem to have held on better than muggles to old-fashioned ways of life (for example, quills and parchment), but that's what I find confusing: in some ways, the WW seems very separated from ours, but in other ways the line between the two worlds is blurred. aldrea279 again: > I always sort of thought that the reason they wore Muggle clothes was > because they were kids. Sort of like...well, like it's a becoming a > wizard privelage/honor to be able to wear robes and look all magical > and mystical all the time. Didn't Ron's older brothers wear robes? > And I don't think the books have ever mentioned any adult wizard > wearing Muggle clothes unless they were trying to go in disguise. And > perhaps that's why the slightly older generations can't quite get the > hang of dressing "normaly", because it's been so long since they've > had to and the styles have changed- and perhaps they just find it > slightly insulting to have to do so? That's an interesting and plausible theory. In GoF, when Harry first meets Bill Weasley, he says, "His [Bill's] clothes would not have looked out of place at a rock concert..." (European Edition, 50), so I'm assuming Bill is wearing muggle clothing, but I think that's because they're more or less of Harry's generation. (But there's been some debate about their ages, hasn't there?) I also agree with draco382's points and think the theory is probably true, but I still can't figure out why some wizard-muggle rules and boundaries are so loose and casual while others are rigid and strict. I guess it's because, like you said, it's only recently become more common for wizards and muggles to do things together, and that some people have trouble getting used to it. It seems like a lot of the older magical folk are bothered by the idea and that it's a widespread opinion that muggles are petty and uninteresting. Makes me think of the elves in _Lord_of_the_Rings_, but I won't get into that. --Doldra From blpurdom at yahoo.com Wed May 8 21:48:31 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 21:48:31 -0000 Subject: Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione In-Reply-To: <000e01c1f6ca$0f4e4920$6401a8c0@barefoot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38575 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Heidi Rugg" wrote: > I believe that JKR is deliberately setting up Ron so that he can > go "either way" (meaning good or bad). What fun would it be if we > **really** knew which way it would turn out? Now, it does seem possible that JKR may WANT us to think for a time that Ron has turned bad, or at the very least, inadvertantly helped Voldemort/The Death Eaters/Someone Really Bad. Then we'll find out that Ron was in fact foiling said Capitalized Villain and all will be well. While many of us will say to ourselves, "Oh, it'll be all right--Ron can't turn out to be bad," no doubt many who always suspected that youngest Weasley boy was going to turn out bad will feel vindicated for a while. However, we already have Hagrid as the Inadvertant Helper Of Evil (telling Quirrell about how to get past Fluffy) so somehow it would seem redundant to cast Ron in that role as well. Neville COULD be viewed as someone who had also played this role (when he left his Gryffindor Tower passwords lying around and Crookshanks stole them for Sirius) but since Crookshanks and Sirius were technically good guys, Neville only APPEARED to inadvertantly assist an evil Capitalized Villain. (JKR does like her twists, doesn't she?) > I think we also need to take a look at the Polyjuice > problem...sometimes people are **literally** not who they seem to > be! I had no clue that Mad-Eye was Crouch. What if Ron tries to > frame Neville? Or Neville Ron? I can see all these possibilities > are very possible and it's maddening! Actually, Polyjuice is not the usual way that people are not what they seem. Quirrell's turban hid Voldemort; the Trio just assumed Malfoy was the heir of Slytherin and Hagrid had opened the Chamber fifty years earlier; as soon as Lupin admits he's a werewolf and embraces Sirius the Trio assumes he's evil, though he's not; Sirius was assumed to be a traitor and murderer and Rita Skeeter, like Sirius, was an unregistered Animagus (as was Peter Pettigrew) who was able to gather her information that way. In fact, the Villain Who Isn't is actually JKR's most prevalent theme, it seems to me, with red herrings usually outnumbering true culprits, and the ubiquitous unregistered Animagus starting to become a little overused. (After having two of them in PoA, I think that's why we were blindsided by Rita. "She's using that AGAIN?" I found myself thinking near the end of GoF.) Which means, of course, that having introduced Polyjuice Potion on CoS and a villain making use of it in GoF--none of that means she's above using it again already in book 5. Clearly, one can't assume about these things. However, I do think it would require Ron to have a major personality transplant to turn traitor because of his so-called "ambition" when that ambition did not pull him back to the mirror, as Harry's mirror vision did, and when he was volunteering himself to be killed in PoA. In fact, if Ron were less brave and more hard working he'd probably be considered loyal enough for Hufflepuff (hey, that rhymes; people who consider themselves Hufflepuffs may feel free to use that). Their brief split before the first task in GoF is clearly an aberration, and once Ron saw how perilous the first task was he wanted to apologize (Harry wouldn't let him, remember) and make up. Which doesn't mean that Ron's always been consistent. I mean, he had the nerve to try to accuse Hermione of not being loyal to Harry because she went to the ball with Krum, but he asked another champion, Fleur, to the ball. (Of course, "loyalty" wasn't really the reason he was attacking her, but I'm surprised that she didn't throw back in his face that he also asked a champion to the ball. IMO, that was an opportunity JKR missed to score Hermione a point.) --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From gideoner4 at yahoo.com Wed May 8 23:24:48 2002 From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (queen_of_slytherin) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 23:24:48 -0000 Subject: The Trio and the Love Triangle (I sure hope not!) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38576 Okay, I just have to say this out loud or forever hold my peace. :) I am an avid fanfic reader and writer, and I've read a whole lot of ships. In fanfic, Ron is more often than not portrayed as someone who'll betray Harry either unwittingly or not. I can take that, because everyone's personality is dynamic. Heck, I can take it e surprised if JK makes Hermione a traitor (but I wouldn't count on it). Anyway, the idea that Ron could go bad, as disturbing it is to me since I am a Ron fan, is something that is admittedly possible. However, I am highly, highly disturbed with the theory that Ron can turn traitor because of Hermione. Hermione will end up with Harry, and Ron get all feeling betrayed, and off he willingly joins the Dark Side or he becomes very vulnerable so that he is easily lured. This is opposed by Ron/Hermione shippers, who claim that Ron has a crush on Hermione, and Hermione could possibly like him back too. But some anti-R/Hr and/or anti-Ron say that Ron and Hermione can be together for a while, but they'll split up because Ron either is a.) abusive b.) neglectful c.) immature d.) insecure e.) unfaithful f.) uncommunicative g.) all of the above. After Ron and Hermione split up, Hermione will be together with Harry, much to Ron's devastation. Thus it's the start of Ron's betrayal (aware or unaware), or so they say. Am I the only one who finds such a storyline cheesy and tacky? It makes everything so melodramatic, soap operatic and worse, predictable and mediocre. If ever Ron will do become evil (which I sure doubt), I sure hope that a love triangle is NOT the reason. ~Lexan From witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com Thu May 9 00:06:22 2002 From: witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com (Wanda the Witch) Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 17:06:22 -0700 (PDT) Subject: History lesson on Railroads! Message-ID: <20020509000622.50197.qmail@web13705.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38577 The best one from Sabine! Does the statement, "We've always done it that way!" ring any bells? > > > > The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 > > feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge > > used? > > Because that's the way they built them in England, and English > > expatriates built the US Railroads. Why did the English build them like > > that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who > > built the pre-railroad tramways, and > > that's the gauge they used. Why did "they" use that gauge then? Because > > the people who built the, tramways used the same jigs and tools that > > they used for building wagons, > > which used that wheel spacing. Okay! Why did the wagons have that > > particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other > > spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance > > roads in England, because that's the spacing of > > the wheel ruts! So who built those old rutted roads? Imperial Rome > > built the first > > long distance roads in Europe (and England) for their legions. The > > roads > > have been used ever since. And the ruts in the roads? > > Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had > > to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots > > were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel > > spacing. The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 > > inches is > > derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war > > chariot. > > > > > > And bureaucracies live forever! > > > > > > So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what > > horse's ass came up with it, you may be exactly right, because the > > Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate > > the back ends > > of two war horses. Now the twist to the story...When you see a Space > > Shuttle sitting > > on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the > > sides of > > the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. > > The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah. The > > engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit > > fatter, but > > the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch > > site. > > The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in > > the > > mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is > > slightly > > wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, > > is > > about as wide as two horses' behinds. > > > > > > > > So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the > > world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two > > thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass "When you come to the edge of all the light you know, and are about to step off into the darkness of the unknown, faith is knowing one of two things will happen; There will be something solid to stand on, or you will be taught how to fly."......Unknown. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ambiradams at hotmail.com Wed May 8 23:44:58 2002 From: ambiradams at hotmail.com (Ambir Adams) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 16:44:58 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Trio and the Love Triangle (I sure hope not!) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38578 >From: "queen_of_slytherin" > >Am I the only one who finds such a storyline cheesy and tacky? It >makes everything so melodramatic, soap operatic?and worse, >predictable and mediocre. If ever Ron will do become evil (which I >sure doubt), I sure hope that a love triangle is NOT the reason. > Oh I totally agree with you, I don't want it to be a love triangle if Ron turns evil. That is so overdone, and it is tacky. I doubt JKR would even be that predictable with the love triangle anyway. So I doubt a love triangle is going to be the cause of Ron turning if he does. Ryoko _________________________________________________________________ Join the world?s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From jillyharris at triton.net Thu May 9 00:27:05 2002 From: jillyharris at triton.net (Jilly Harris) Date: Wed, 08 May 2002 20:27:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Trio and the Love Triangle (I sure hope not!) References: Message-ID: <3CD9C259.FB0A6866@triton.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38579 queen_of_slytherin wrote: > Okay, I just have to say this out loud or forever hold my peace. :) > > I am an avid fanfic reader and writer, and I've read a whole lot of > ships. In fanfic, Ron is more often than not portrayed as someone > who'll betray Harry either unwittingly or not. I can take that, > because everyone's personality is dynamic. Heck, I can take it e > surprised if JK makes Hermione a traitor (but I wouldn't count on > it). Anyway, the idea that Ron could go bad, as disturbing it is to > me since I am a Ron fan, is something that is admittedly possible. > > However, I am highly, highly disturbed with the theory that Ron can > turn traitor because of Hermione. Hermione will end up with Harry, > and Ron get all feeling betrayed, and off he willingly joins the > Dark Side or he becomes very vulnerable so that he is easily lured. > This is opposed by Ron/Hermione shippers, who claim that Ron has a > crush on Hermione, and Hermione could possibly like him back too. > But some anti-R/Hr and/or anti-Ron say that Ron and Hermione can be > together for a while, but they'll split up because Ron either is a.) > abusive b.) neglectful c.) immature d.) insecure e.) unfaithful > f.) uncommunicative g.) all of the above. After Ron and Hermione > split up, Hermione will be together with Harry, much to Ron's > devastation. Thus it's the start of Ron's betrayal (aware or > unaware), or so they say. > > Am I the only one who finds such a storyline cheesy and tacky? It > makes everything so melodramatic, soap operatic and worse, > predictable and mediocre. If ever Ron will do become evil (which I > sure doubt), I sure hope that a love triangle is NOT the reason. There are hints that someone that a fan of Harry's will die in the future, whichever it is. Many suspect Hagrid, many suspect Ginny, some suspect even Dumbledore. My theory is this: Ron and Hermione begin dating, I mean, there ARE hints there in Book 4 that it could happen. At least I think so. What if Ron is the one that is a fan of Harry's that is killed? That would definitely lead into Harry and Hermione growing closer because of their shared grief. They both lost a friend, Hermione her boyfriend. This in turn leads them to falling in love. I admit fully I am not a Harry/Hermione shipper. I just seem them as a brother/sister kinda thing, but there are those that are H/H shippers. (In all honesty as implausible as it is, I'm a Draco/Hermione shipper, it's that whole 'thin line between love and hate' thing) but canonly I am a Ron/Hermione shipper. But those are my 2 cents. Jilly From chetah27 at hotmail.com Thu May 9 02:41:23 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 02:41:23 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione In-Reply-To: <109313102184.20020508113026@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38580 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne wrote: > Is it, so Ron is out of the way and Harry and Hermione can > be "a couple"? Actually, I don't like Harry and Hermione being a couple. Harry has never thought a single thought about Hermione that wasn't more than just friends! Infact, he's thought thoughts that were LESS than friendly. I honestly don't see Harry and Hermione hooking up, unless by some sudden change Harry goes "oh, I really do love Hermione!". I see Ron and Hermione, just because it seemed so plainly obvious that they liked each other in GoF. Hey, opposites attract. > Is it because you really dislike Ron as a character? > The story would be more interesting to see him bad or dead. I like Ron, I think he displays the perfectly average Wizard. Harry displays the rather average Muggle. And Hermione is rather inbetween, because though she is Muggle-born, she seems to know everything there is to know about the WW(from books, that is). I suppose she's in there to show the female side of things, and just to show Harry and Ron up. =P > He doesn't deserve to be part of the trio because of his > flaws (temper, envy)? The only time I really saw the above mentioned flaws was in GoF, and I think his actions only sprung from his subconscious liking of Hermoine rather than any true feelings of resentment towards Harry. > He's the present day equivalent of Pettigrew and therefor > *has* to go bad? I NEVER saw Ron as Pettigrew! Where does this come from? I always saw Neville as Pettigrew. Just Neville and Pettigrew's physical descriptions seem to match rather well. Then it talks about Pettigrew always being the tag-along to James and his group, and that is exactly what Neville has always seemed to be to the Trio. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Heidi Rugg" wrote: >However, I do think it would require Ron to have a major personality transplant to turn traitor because of his so-called "ambition" when that ambition did not pull him back to the mirror, as Harry's mirror vision did, and when he was volunteering himself to be killed in PoA. In fact, if Ron were less brave and more hard working he'd probably be considered loyal enough for Hufflepuff (hey, that rhymes; people who consider themselves Hufflepuffs may feel free to use that). Their brief split before the first task in GoF is clearly an aberration, and once Ron saw how perilous the first task was he wanted to apologize (Harry wouldn't let him, remember) and make up. > I think Ron has the want to outdue his brothers(and Harry) so as to be recognized for himself, but I don't think he really has the drive to do so. Look at how he does in his classes, it's not like he's an attention-deprived, over-acheiver trying desperately to be noticed. I believe it's just his secret dream to become one of the greats, plus I don't think Ron has yet found his true calling. He seems to be a mix of some of his brother's traits- he has a good sense of humor and rebellion like the twins, but he also has the same sense of loyalty and responsibility(although this last one seems rather small alot of the time =P) as Percy. "aldrea279" From witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com Thu May 9 03:24:21 2002 From: witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com (Wanda the Witch) Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 20:24:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Sorry Everybody! Message-ID: <20020509032421.48888.qmail@web13701.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38581 Wanda the Witch of Revere, Massachusetts and Her Very Merry Band of Muggles 100%, hangs her head in shame! That post wasn't meant to go to the main list! Not even to any list! My son was wrestling with the dog and getting me aggravated with all the barking and screaming, I didn't even realize I checked off HPFGU'S! Well, it just goes to show you how much of a muggle I am and really made messed up! SORRY TO EVERYONE! I can't promise it won't happen again because I am only human and boy do I make tons of mistakes every day! Just add this to my list of screwups! Wanda the Witch off to corner for a time out! My muggles think it is funny! "When you come to the edge of all the light you know, and are about to step off into the darkness of the unknown, faith is knowing one of two things will happen; There will be something solid to stand on, or you will be taught how to fly."......Unknown. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From neilward at dircon.co.uk Thu May 9 04:08:24 2002 From: neilward at dircon.co.uk (Neil Ward) Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 05:08:24 +0100 Subject: ADMIN: Reminder on use of SHIP prefix Message-ID: <00e901c1f70f$2a5ea3a0$3b3470c2@c5s910j> No: HPFGUIDX 38582 Ahoy shipmates! I'm interrupting the splicing o' the mainbrace for a second with a reminder to those discussing ships - relationships, romance pairings... erm, eternal love triangles: Please use (or edit in) the SHIP prefix afore yer message headers. >From the recent ADMIN (the one announcing the TBAY prefix): <> For further information on all prefixing, please see section 2.5 of the Humongous Bigile. http://www.hpfgu.org.uk/admin/ Thanks. Stroking his cat-o-ninetails, Neil ..... for the Moderators ______________ Flying Ford Anglia "Harry couldn't see how eight people, six large trunks, two owls, and a rat were going to fit into one small Ford Anglia. He had reckoned, of course, without the special features that Mr. Weasley had added." (Chamber of Secrets) From abigailnus at yahoo.com Thu May 9 07:03:00 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 07:03:00 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry/Mother's Love In-Reply-To: <3CD85FDB.D7E03BAA@kingwoodcable.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38583 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Katze wrote: > I'm also a believer that there's more to Harry surviving the AK curse > than the excuse that Lily saved him with her love. Why would it only > work for her, and never anyone else? It's ancient magic, that apparently > one of the most ruthless wizards has forgotten. Wouldn't you think that > with all of V's killing people would do anything to protect their love > ones - like learning ancient magic? I just think that if this were > really the case, many more people would've survived the AK curse. My understanding was that it wasn't exactly the fact that Lily died shielding Harry from Voldemort, but the fact that she had a choice in the matter that protects Harry. We know that Voldemort specifically offerred Lily her life if she stepped away and let him kill the child. I don't imagine he often offered that kind of "mercy", so while there might have been many people who died shielding their children or other loved ones, they were only hastening the inevitable, as they were going to die anyway. None of them actively chose death rather than standing aside and watching their loved ones die. It's this extra level of sacrifise that protected Harry from AK, not simply the fact that his mother died before him. After all, if that were the case, Harry would also be protected by his father's death - James stayed behind and died in order to try and give Lily time to escape with Harry. However, since Voldemort was apparently going to kill James anyway (remember, he was there to kill "the last Potter"), his sacrifise doesn't protect Harry. I'm not sure exactly where I stand on Stoned!Harry (apart from the fact that it's a cool name - who needs an acronym?) I agree with, I think it was Cindy, who said that in this case the only possible resolution would be for Harry to die at the end of the series, and I just don't see that happening - it's not even a matter of JKR being lynched by fans, I just don't think she'd be so cruel to the children who love her books. I personally have always wondered if at the end of the series Harry would find himself unable to live in the WW - he's too famous, or maybe he'll step on the wrong toes at the MoM. I see him going off to see the elephant, maybe with Ron and Hermione at his side. Yes, I know, how LOTR can you get, but there's something very satisfying in the hero who saves the world but not for himself, and Tolkein managed to do it without killing Frodo off. Abigail From chetah27 at hotmail.com Thu May 9 01:59:28 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 01:59:28 -0000 Subject: Hogwarts prep school/Clothing/language/Muggle Interface In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38584 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bystardust" wrote: > It's true--the WW does seem to have held on better than muggles to > old-fashioned ways of life (for example, quills and parchment), but > that's what I find confusing: in some ways, the WW seems very > separated from ours, but in other ways the line between the two > worlds is blurred. Yes, it does indeed. But I'm thinking the WW and the Muggle world branched from each other a long time ago. The story about the founding of Hogswarts makes me believe strongly in this. I don't know the exact qoute(I'm almost sure it's somewheres in Cos), but it mentions that when the school was founded there was alot of bad prejudice about wizards or something of the kind. I just immediately think of the Dark Ages(that'd be back some hundred years in England, around the time they still had parchment/quills and governesses, I'd say...). And I agree with draco382, in that it seems as though this merging of Muggle and WW seems to be rather new. Doldra: > I also agree with draco382's points and think the theory is probably > true, but I still can't figure out why some wizard-muggle rules and > boundaries are so loose and casual while others are rigid and strict. > I guess it's because, like you said, it's only recently become more > common for wizards and muggles to do things together, and that some > people have trouble getting used to it. It seems like a lot of the > older magical folk are bothered by the idea and that it's a > widespread opinion that muggles are petty and uninteresting. Makes me > think of the elves in _Lord_of_the_Rings_, but I won't get into that. I have to go with the new-ness of this merging as an answer for the slackness of some rules and the strictness of others. I think the Wizards main worry is being found out by the Muggles, so I imagine such rules would be rather strictly enforced. But perhaps it's just because each department is run in it's own way, and each Head of the department runs things very differently- take Ludo Bagman and Barty Crouch, for example. Yes, it does seem to resemble the way Elves and Men acted towards each other a long long time ago(this is in LotR reckoning). From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu May 9 07:20:13 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 07:20:13 -0000 Subject: Ron's Envy In-Reply-To: <011901c1f697$c75733c0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38585 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > > I take this to mean that you are referring to his fight with Harry over entry into the Triwizard Tournament as Ron's "envy crisis." If so, then Ron's envy is not completely resolved after he & Harry make up. Remember Ron's reaction to learning that leprachaun gold disappears? He's still envious of Harry's wealth, if not his fame per se. No, I would say that Ron's envy issues are not yet fully resolved. > > Penny > I think there is a very significant difference between Ron's reaction to Harry's entering the Tournament and his reaction to the leprechaun gold. During his Tournament "envy crisis" Ron doesn't acknowledge that he is envious of Harry. He wasn't aware himself that his anger is not really about Harry entering the Tournament behind his back. In fact, if it weren't for Hermione, I'm not sure we would have understood what it is really abou.t So Ron was then in denial (so to speak). It's trite, but nevertheless true, that overcoming denial is the first step to recovery. We know that Ron finally believed that Harry was telling the truth. That and the hints of some pretty serious soul searchings (the night Harry meets Sirius in the common room fireplace) indicate that Ron did face up to the true sources of his anger. The way I see it, the leprechaun gold *proves* that he has. His "it must be nice to have so much gold.." comment is a clear expression of envy - which is a good thing. Doubly good, in fact. Because, first, it means that he has faced his feelings, and, secondly, that he can voice those feelings. After all, there's nothing wrong with *feeling* envy (or anger or hatred or whatever). The wrong thing is to be ruled by those passions instead of just,.. well.., feeling them. The leprechaun incident clearly shows us that Ron is able to feel envy without being possessed by it. So, in this sense, I still stand by what I said - Ron has resolved his envy issues. Naama From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Thu May 9 03:34:51 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (Heidi Rugg) Date: Wed, 8 May 2002 23:34:51 -0400 Subject: SHIP: The Trio and the Love Triangle (I sure hope not!) and Death to a "Fan" References: <3CD9C259.FB0A6866@triton.net> Message-ID: <001101c1f70a$7ac810b0$6401a8c0@barefoot> No: HPFGUIDX 38586 Jilly writes: >>There are hints that someone that a fan of Harry's will die in the future, whichever it is. Many suspect Hagrid, many suspect Ginny, some suspect even Dumbledore...<< My 2 cents: I suspect either Colin or Dennis Creevey will bite the dust in addition to Dumbledore. That's my story and I'm stickin' to it. I think that the Colin/Dennis death would cause a major personality shift in the surviving brother. Perhaps leading to a new possibility in terms of a "Pettigrew" for the current generation....Hmmmmmm... I feel that JKR is slowly preparing us for Dumbledore's death: he is looking older, more gaunt. Harry is noticing how tired he is... It's really the only way that the characters can be challenged. Dumbledore is the only one with powers equal to Voldemort's -- he holds him in check. The only way to stir things up is for Dumbledore to follow Flamel into that final adventure... Re: The Harry/Hermione ship... This ship will never set sail. **Sorry** Now I don't want to stomp on any H/H shipper toes, but I am firmly in the opposite camp. I foresee a relationship between Ron and Hermione that goes beyond friendship, to some degree. It may not happen right away, it may not be forever...but I think it will be. I'm not sure who Harry will take up with...if anyone. ((What about all those Christ analogies?? Perhaps he will follow this way...die without a partner...or is there a "Mary" Magdelene character?)) My first instinct was Ginny, but that will depend on how she develops as a character. Right now she's too much of a "damsel in distress" to be of much interest. I don't see Cho happening. Susan Bones (who also lost parents it seems...)? Actually, I see Harry becoming somewhat disillusioned ("Everyone important to me DIES") before getting serious. I could be wrong about this, but it seems that his latest contact with Voldemort will have to greatly effect how he handles things from here on out. Even JKR said that Book 4 would be very pivotal. I do want to see Harry live. I want to see him with a big ol' family...I just don't know if that is in the cards -- or the tea leaves! Jilly writes: >>In all honesty as implausible as it is, I'm a Draco/Hermione shipper<< Me: Hmmmm...that'd be really cool, though! Or what about Harry/a Slytherin? That would rock the boat! We need OOP! Heidi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nobradors at hotmail.com Thu May 9 04:08:14 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?N=FAria_Obradors_Pi?=) Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 01:08:14 -0300 Subject: the Prank/Primary school (was: Higher Ed) References: <1020769572.2396.48825.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38587 Katherine said: >>>>I must confess to taking a view akin to no reason. I believe that Sirius was having a bad day and Snape asking about and likely insulting Remus didn't do anything to help. So during they're third class together, Sirius turns around and says, "Well, why don't you find out for yourself, Snape?" and proceeds to give him directions into the Willow. But this, I feel, is not the most important part. The most important part is that Sirius didn't go after Snape even after he'd had sufficient time to cool down. <<<< Here's my little bit of speculation. I'm not saying it *is* how it happened, but it's a possibility to explaining Sirius' going a tad too far: For whatever reason (bad day as you say, or Misterious_Prank_Backgroun_Yet_To_Be_Unveiled), Sirius gets fed up and tells Snape off and gives him directions, more or less accurate, more or les conciously. He's told Snape off, he feels relieved. He doesn't even recall exactly *how accurate* he was in directing Snape to the Willow. And most important, he doesn't actually believe that boy whom he considers a sort of stupid git will go into the whomping willow. Probably he underestimated Snape's courage to actually go and take a look. What canon says "Sirius thought it would be -er- amusing, to tell Snape all he had to do was prod the knot on the tree-trunk with a long stick, and he'd be able to get in after me" (PoA18, page 261 British ed.) Questions arise... a. Did Sirius think Snape would find so stupid the 'prod the knot' bit, that he'd assume it was a joke and wouldn't try it? b. Where was Sirius when James saved Snape? Could it be he was in the shack with Werewolf!Lupin intending to eventually keep Snape apart from Lupin? I'm not sure he was fully aware of Remus' dangerousness when transformed - since being a dog he only knew the Tame!Werewolf side Katherine: >>>>But we're forgetting the last factor: Remus. Even if Sirius hated Snape too much to go after him, why didn't he consider Remus? <<<< This, IMHO would be the *childish* (though not so inocent) side of the prank. Probably, he never thought Remus could get into trouble. Perhaps the farther Sirius thought got was "well, if Snape gets killed or something, it will be his problem only because *he* was the one who went to encounter the werewolf". Call me biased towards Sirius, if you like, but , what can say, If he was Harry I'd be his Ginny -or worse his Creevey! >>>>So, in conclusion, I have to agree with Penny. There is more to the Prank that has been portrayed so far.<<<< If I think objective, yes, join me to that club then. **** Aldrea wrote: >>>>And this just makes me wonder...how do wizarding children learn to read or write or any of those fundametals that we learn in school? Do their mothers just home school them? That's the only answer I can come up with, unless they have a sort of primary school, and then from there they can go to a wizarding school<<<< I too agree this issue is one of the big mysteries in the Potterverse. It doesn't seem likely that the purebloods go to muggle primary school, or they'd *know* a little better about muggle world. Yet there is no source, or even hint, in canon of a wizarding primary school. And even when this leave Aldrea's theory as the more solid one, if all wizarding children were educated like that, chances are that the cultural level would be so uneven it just wouldn't be sustainable and in a couple of generations 90 % would be like Stan Shunpike of the Knight Bus. Maybe someone familiar with in-home education can enlighten us? Perhaps there's a schooling program in the WWN like something I once heard they had in the Aussie Outback? **** Nuri <<>> Finally, in response to "Grey Wolf, who's looking forward to chatting with Cat this Sunday, and maybe having Nuria along so he can practise his Spanish", I'm sorry I couldn't join - I'll see if I can some of these days, but honestly, I don't even know how longer am I going to have Internet at home due to the $$$ situation. However, Grey wolf, if you want to practise your Spanish, feel free to email me privately :-) And do you know why do women feel compassionate and understanding towards Lupin ? No? He's got the curse once a month! From michelle_ravel at yahoo.ca Thu May 9 05:45:26 2002 From: michelle_ravel at yahoo.ca (michelle_ravel) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 05:45:26 -0000 Subject: The Trio and the Love Triangle (I sure hope not!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38588 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "queen_of_slytherin" wrote: > However, I am highly, highly disturbed with the theory that Ron can > turn traitor because of Hermione. > Am I the only one who finds such a storyline cheesy and tacky? It > makes everything so melodramatic, soap operatic and worse, > predictable and mediocre. If ever Ron will do become evil (which I > sure doubt), I sure hope that a love triangle is NOT the reason. Yes, that storyline does seem a bit odd... it's the Harry's Creek phenomenon. ;) Honestly, I don't think something like this would happen, simply because I'm not sure where she'd have time to put it in! Romance *will* play a part in the books--JKR has said so--but to be an important character and plot point like that? My goodness, that would take a lot of maneuvering, wouldn't it? I'm sure she could do it, but why would she want to? Barf. Romance looks like it might be a sort of relieving side-plot... like it was in GoF. At least, I hope so. Too much romance would ruin the novels (I'm not here to read romance!)... while just enough would make it highly satisfying. Let's at least have Ron going evil for a good reason, shall we, folks? If he has to become the next Peter Pettigrew, it had better be for a pretty damn exciting reason, having nothing to do with some girl. JKR has done such a great job of demonstrating the strength of true friendship in the novel. The friendship between the three kids is so wonderful, so touching, so funny... it's honestly one of my favourite parts of the HP series. Friendship is one of the values that JKR talks about putting in her novels... and I do think that she would try to focus more on the strengthening and maturing of the friendships, rather than the breaking and corrupting of them. ;) Something has to be sacred here... and it looks like love between the friends is one of those things. Besides, we've already had a huge betrayal-tragedy in the past, in Harry's parent's generation. I would think we might want to deal with that one first, eh? To tear the friends apart in a messy love triangle situation would make them very different books than the ones I'm reading now. Not only would it do away with some fundemental truths I see JKR to be holding to... but it would be really, really dumb. Love triangle? Honestly. No Harry's Creek--blech. Besides, don't we have some dude named Voldemort to worry about? Michelle From nithya_rachel at hotmail.com Thu May 9 07:10:23 2002 From: nithya_rachel at hotmail.com (errolowl) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 07:10:23 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38589 AHOY THERE! is a relative newbie permitted to flag down the Kayak? :After much deliberation, Caroline & crew help Errol on board Errol looks around, unsure in which direction to row ummm: Quote Caroline: [In art, the alchemists showed the creation of the philosopher's stone as a stag & unicorn coming together in a forest. So, I figure James + Lily = living Philosopher's stone If Harry is the living stone, then V will need him to become immortal, and if Harry gave up his immortality, than V will have lost out in that particular venture.] OOOOHH Yes! Stoned! Harry is really cool, and accepting Caroline's mastery of Alchemy, the symbols are hard to refute. He *has* been consciously surrounded by the relevant elements.Harry being the living stone also gives him a viable alternative claim to `special' status, as opposed to the Heir of Gryffindor theory. (I never quite bought the bit about the [yet unheard of] prophesy of the battle of the Heirs ;-)) .but :tries to put uneasy feeling into words: but..why would Voldmort try to kill Harry again & again if he knew he was immortal, and thus unkillable? If one argues that he didn't know about the living stone part, then there would be no reason to go after Harry, would there? Quote Laura: [what if Dumbledore created TOM RIDDLE with the potential for immortality because of the prediction about a Dark Lord Trelawney or whomever made(thinking that *Tom* would be the Light Lord), and then was forced to create Harry to fulfill the prophecy and undo the damage he had caused.] but this still doesn't help in untangling anything. Even IF Dumbledore helped `create' Tom (*What* was he thinking of, mixing with the Slytherin line anyway? And why leave Tom to grow up in a muggle orphanage?), why would Tom merely have the *potential* for immortality, while Harry has it inherent at birth? Now if Harry also just has the *potential* to be immortal, he would have to go through some sort of process to gain that immortality. Quote Caroline: [First, the alchemists started the whole idea of a person *becoming* a philosopher's stone, through some spiritual process] Ok, so far so good. Voldy recognizes the potential and tries to eliminate Harry (though why he didn't show that urgency when he dueled Harry, I don't know). This also ties in with Dumbledore's dictum of "its our choices that make us who we are far more than our abilities". But this also means that Harry is not immortal *yet* oh dear, that seems to conflict with quite a few others in the Kayak.. Quote Cindy: [Actually, the idea that Harry has the potential for eternal life explains a lot of canon mysteries. It explains why Dumbledore seems not to be troubled by Harry's rule-breaking. It explains why the DEs couldn't curse fleeing Harry. It explains why Harry was stronger than Voldemort in the duel. It explains why Harry was able to survive his duel with the Basilisk.] See? now I'm confused. Harry's as vulnerable as ever!. :scratches head: Well, ok next rowing in another tangent to Dicentra's decapitation theory Quote Dicentra: [Oh yes, he most definintely has to die at the end. And JKR has alreadly told us how it's going down (at least I think she has). Remember when Harry and Ron were making up predictions in GoF and how Harry inadvertently predicted the three tasks? Well, the last prediction Harry made was his own beheading. And, as someone pointed out last time I pointed this out, Ron and Harry were later playing with a couple of the twins' trick wands in McGonagall's class: Harry's had turned into a rubber fish and Ron's was a tin parrot. Ron beheaded Harry's fish with his parrot. Is that Bangy or what? Not only does Harry have to die to take Voldemort out, but it will end up being by Ron's hand. (Whether it's good!Ron or evil!Ron I cannot say at this time.) And his head comes off, too! BANG! ] OMG! This really has me going!! I really like Ron..and I want Harry to live, so this sends Chills down my spine. Has there been an indepth discussion of Trelawney's predictions already? Harry and Ron do seem to unconsciously predict their own paths to a certain extent but didn't their homework cover only the next *month* ? (are we reaching too far here?). If their predictions are so on target, is Ron going to get runover by a rampaging Hippogriff? ummm, my crystal ball's gone all foggy But I looked up the 13 at dinner scene again and watched Dumbledore closely he didn't refute it!! Trelawney makes a scene, and it's McGonagall who phoo-phoos it. You'd think DD would have said something ? but not a peep out of him! IF we were to take that to really bode the future, Ron / Harry are to die before the others at the table. So who else is there? ? Dumbledore, Snape, McGonagall, Trelawney, Flitwick, Sprout, 3 other students and Hermoine. Here, Hagrid is conspicuous by his absence ? afterall, he does live on the grounds! Where is he? An unexpected prop to the Hagrid's early demise theory. Now, there's some confusion over who got up first ? Harry or Ron. Does that imply that in the climatic scene, there will be some confusion over who actually died? (depressing line of thought). It seems to me that Harry & Ron are to be in at the climax and maybe try to sacrifice for each other or something. I don't quite go all the way with the `Ron causes Harry's death' theory, though I think it's a really interesting course. This has gone on long enough, so I'll stop. Last words I don't think Hermione will let her two best friends fight over her in a triangle ? she'll think of something! - Errol (The confused soul who ended up paddling so hard in all directions that the Kayak now spins out of control in circles): glares from the rest of the crew: From nobradors at hotmail.com Thu May 9 06:42:47 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?N=FAria_Obradors_Pi?=) Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 03:42:47 -0300 Subject: TBAY Stoned Harry/the prank/Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione References: <1020853451.4954.6308.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38590 Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry/Mother's Love Caroline wrote: >>>>Stoned Harry! I love it!<<<< Fascinating Theory. Caroline: >>>>First, the alchemists started the whole idea of a person *becoming* a philosopher's stone, through some spiritual process; it was one of the things they were into, along with turning metal into gold & developing an elixir of immortality. The alchemists believed that Mercury + Sulphur = Philosopher's stone. Things associated, alchemically, with sulphur: stag, phoenix, color red, lion With mercury: color green, serpent, unicorn In art, the alchemists showed the creation of the philosopher's stone as a stag & unicorn coming together in a forest. So, I figure James + Lily = living Philosopher's stone<<<< Do you suggest Lily would have been an animagus too? >>>>We know *as canonical fact* that the stag is related to James. If you'd like to go with the heir of Gryffindor combo meal, you can add the color red & the lion. We know *as canonical fact* that the color green is related to Lily (and that it'll be important.) I don't think adding the unicorn is too much of a stretch: unicorn = purity; lily = purity; willow (like in her wand) = purity.<<<< I really had no idea of all these alchemy elements, it's very interesting! and the way they intertwine with canon too. >>>>And if you want to super-size that combo, you can add that Lily was an heir of Slytherin (remember the wording in CoS was a "deliberate error," JKR says), and that Harry inherited the Parseltongue (serpent connection) through her.<<<< Lily heir of Slytherin? Correct me if I'm wrong, please: hadn't JKR said somewhere Lily was a Gryffindor? and what do you mean by the wording in CoS and deliberate error? Caroline: >>>>In fact, I went through SS & CoS pretty carefully to see where that whole theory came from. And it's not Dumbledore that tells us this: it's Harry, when he's talking to Riddle in the chamber. Dumbledore only says "Your mother died to save you." And this is in answer to the question "Why couldn't Quirrell touch me?", (SS p. 299) not `how did I survive?' I figure this can be interpreted as, Lily died in the attempt to save Harry, but that's not necessarily why he lived. <<<< Very well observed. Caroline: >>>>(Bonus tidbit: Another word for the Philosopher's stone is cinnabar: this means dragon's blood in Persian. Remind anyone of a certain chocoate frog card??) <<<< Good old Dumbly-Dorrr!!!!!!!!!! Dicentra responds to this thread: >>>>Oh yes, he most definintely has to die at the end. And JKR has alreadly told us how it's going down (at least I think she has). Remember when Harry and Ron were making up predictions in GoF and how Harry inadvertently predicted the three tasks? Well, the last prediction Harry made was his own beheading. <<<< Nice ending, Harry dying... would be unexpected, original (the hero dies!) and dramatic, but no, no, no... I don't want poor 17-year-old baby Harry to die... he's too young! OTOH, I hadn't notice what you say about Harry predicting the Triwizard tasks... of course I grabbed my GoF to check, but couldn't find the beheadment bit... (not that at was to thorough on it at 2:30 am) In what chapter was it? Oh, let me please add some glitter to your FEATHERBOA: Harry dies in book 7... in Chapter 2! (or anywhere you like before the first half of the book...) Spooky, aye? **** Doldra said: >>>>When Sirius played The Prank on Snape, his hatred for him was all that was on his mind; much like when he was trying to get at Peter at the end of PoA, even Ron's leg couldn't stop him. I think Sirius' problem is that he gets -too- emotional about things. He's never going to forgive himself for James' and Lily's deaths and when he's really angry he can't think clearly. I've always wondered about why he chokes Harry at the end of PoA, but I guess a lot of that can be attributed to the fact that he's clearly not altogether sane at that point.<<<< Oh, yes, yes yes! That's actually what I think too but didn't know how to put into words (dunno if that's going blank or not knowing enough English ). Should I put an example, for those who've read 'A Sirius Affaire', the part when he gets-hmmm- agressive (don't want to spoil it for those who haven't read it, I hope you know which one I mean), well, I thought is was really 'Sirius' in that part. *If you understood this paragraph, please explain it to the perplexed author, thank you* **** Susanne wrote: >>>> reading the comments from several people who seem to feel pretty strongly that Ron will betray Harry's trust in the future and join the dark side, made me wonder. It sounds like some people would welcome this development, and I'd like to find out why .<<<< I absolutely agree with you, Susanne. What's wrong with Ron? Why does he get such a grudge? Susanne: > Is it, so Ron is out of the way and Harry and Hermione can >be "a couple"? That would be very childish if you ask me. I'm not a H/H shipper but come on... whether Ron and Hermione get to date or not... that doesn't mean they can split up and the Hermione turns to harry instead (PoU comes to my mind...) About this, Barb said: >>>I'm guessing that's part of it. For the H/H ship, he's rather inconvenient<<< Is he really or is he just because JKR put a sexual tension between Ron and Hermione in GoF? (see my comment above). I'd really like to ask those who agree with Ron being a nuisance in the H/H ship, to honestly think what would their feelings be towards Ron if he was trying to get H/H together instead of seeing Hermione in a new (romantic?) way. I'm not a R/H shipper either: I think they coul have fun but I doubt they'd succeed in a long-term thing. And as I don't supoport the Ron is Ever so Envious theory (see below), I'm prone to think a post H/R, H/H relationship is indeed possible. Or they could have this nasty and lusty menage-a-trois and leave us all happy! Anyway, Penny spoke very sensibly about this point in her post Susanne: >> Is it because you really dislike Ron as a character? The story would be more interesting to see him bad or dead.<< I do hope not. I really like Ron. There's a lot of other characters more likely and reasonably to go bad - Ron is far from perfect, but the thought of an Evil!Ron is totally out of my perception. Susanne: >>> He doesn't deserve to be part of the trio because of his flaws (temper, envy)?<<<< Thinking so it would be bigot, IMHO. And personally, I don't believe Ron is an envious person. true, he wishes he'd have some of what Harry's got - or his brothers, for instance. He who's never wished anything from any fellow man, throw the first stone. But Ron never, ever AFAICR, wishes Harry to lose what he's got. Ron never asks Harry, not even indirectly, to spare Harry's riches with him in any ways. As I see it, Ron doesn't envy Harry's wealth, he's simply upset for being poor. Harry being rich only reminds him of it. Ron's only 15 at the end of GoF, he's still too young to fully realise that having loving, caretaking parents, siblings and friends makes him wealthier than money. Barb also defended Ron: >>>>Remember, in the first book, he [Ron] was the one with the strength to walk away from the Mirror of Erised (which SHOWED him as Head Boy and Quidditch captain), while Harry wanted to keep going back and stare at his family. [snipped reference to fanfic] I think it also illustrated a good point about Ron's personality; as much as folks say they fear him going bad because of his ambition, while he likes to grouse about being in his brothers' and Harry's shadows, he also knows that friendship and doing what's right are more important than being in the spotlight (as in sacrificing himself for Harry and Hermione to get across McGonagall's chess board) and I believe this early clue to his personality is JKR's way of showing that Ron will never be a Peter-Pettigrew-style traitor. <<<< Good for you, girl. Is that the way an envious, evil person behaves? NO! Susanne: >>> He's the present day equivalent of Pettigrew and therefor *has* to go bad?<<<< GOD -and JKR- FORBID! Ryoko pondered: >>>Here is my reason if why I think Ron could switch loyalties, not saying he will, but very well could. I think Ron would join the dark side becuase of Jealousy. Harry has everything, Voldie could very well promise Ron everything if he joined is order. As we all have seen Ron is controlled by his Jealousy, He believed that Harry put his own name in the goblet and he was so jealous of that, and many other things in book 4. So he would join Voldie cause he doesn't feel adequate and Voldie will promise to give him what he wants.<<<< Though, I repeat, I can't grasp the concept of Ron ever being evil, I want to point something out about how jealousy takes hold of him in GoF. As we all know, Ron has lot to live up to, all what his brothers have done. And he's almost in 5th, year, and he doesn't seem to be heading to their success: not likely to ne head boy, not in the quidditch team, not popular for being a practical joker... I guess he's just a tad desperate because he may be feeling he's "running out of time" to accomplish some glory of himself. Susanne: >>>> There are most likely a million reasons I haven't considered, but I like all three of the kid main characters and would truly hate this kind of development, so I'd like to see some other opinions :)<<<< Just heard mine! As I said, I quite agree with you. The trio is fine as it is. I'd hate to lose one of them. Susanne: >>>> Especially since it looks like book 5 will not come out any time soon to see how things develop in canon.<<<< Don't remind me! :-( Nuri, who, at 3:42 in the morning, is veeery sleepy indeed. From southernscotland at yahoo.com Thu May 9 04:02:38 2002 From: southernscotland at yahoo.com (southernscotland) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 04:02:38 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38591 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > OK, you guys are starting to *scare* me just a bit. I mean, it's > one thing to just imagine having Harry die... > > But now you guys have found actual *canons* for Stoned!Harry!... > > *A Cross*! It was a crooked (some might even say Old Rugged) Cross!... > > A sheep? A young sheep? A *lamb*, I daresay?... > > Yes, it all adds up. Stoned!Harry is destined to die a death as a > sacrifical lamb to spare others from an awful fate... Brrrrr! It's COLD in this water! This is starting to make more and more sense. Ooooh, I just don't know...so eerie. I almost hate to bring this up, but there's another bit of canon. I just looked it up. "They were standing instead in a dark and overgrown graveyard; the black outline of a small church was visible beyond a large yew tree to their right." (GOF) Aside from the obvious symbolism of the small church, here's another. It is mentioned at least three times specifically, and I'll bet at least some of you caught it: The yew tree. It is said to be an ancient symbol of immortality. Of course, it could just be referring to V's immortality quest, but still... Shivers! Hypothermia! (Get off that water, Harry! Right now! Come back here!) lilahp (who has always been bloodthirsty, but now may reconsider) From gideoner4 at yahoo.com Thu May 9 10:42:36 2002 From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (queen_of_slytherin) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 10:42:36 -0000 Subject: SHIP Re: The Trio and the Love Triangle (I sure hope not!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38592 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "michelle_ravel" wrote: > > Yes, that storyline does seem a bit odd... it's the Harry's Creek > phenomenon. ;) > No Harry's Creek--blech. Besides, don't we have some dude named > Voldemort to worry about? > > Michelle You got it, Michelle. The love triangle of Ron-Hermione-Harry is remarkably like those angsty-teenage drama on TV, particularly Dawson's Creek. I admit that I enjoy watching some of those shows for fun, but I don't think it'll be good for HP. Hp is bound to be a classic literary series, so I don't think it should be equivalent to those soaps, plot-wise. Lexan From Edblanning at aol.com Thu May 9 12:53:02 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 08:53:02 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry Message-ID: <14c.da58a98.2a0bcb2e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38593 southernscotland at yahoo.com writes: > I almost hate to bring this up, but there's another bit of canon. I > just looked it up. > > "They were standing instead in a dark and overgrown graveyard; the > black outline of a small church was visible beyond a large yew tree > to their right." (GOF) > > Aside from the obvious symbolism of the small church, here's another. > It is mentioned at least three times specifically, and I'll bet at > least some of you caught it: > > The yew tree. It is said to be an ancient symbol of immortality. > Eloise: With apologies in advance to Dicentra ;-) , I'm going to be boring again. They were in the graveyard because that's where Tom Riddle's father was buried. There's only one place the inhabitant of a large country house would be buried at that time (barring a private cemetery/ chapel in the grounds, and I don't think the Riddle House is on that scale): in the local churchyard. English churchyards (well, old ones) always have yew trees, partly because of the symbolism you point out, partly because they're poisonous and discourage local livestock from invading to browse on them. I think it's pushing it a little to say they're symbolic, more scene dressing. Cindy: >Immortal Stoned!Harry, according to Dicentra, can walk on water. >And, pray tell, what was the very first thing Harry saw in the >teacup in his very first Divination Class? *A Cross*! It was a >crooked (some might even say Old Rugged) Cross! > >die down> > >And, my friends, what did Ron see when he looked into Harry's cup? >Ah, you don't remember, do you? Let me refresh your >recollection: "[T]hat looks like an animal . . . yeah, if that was >its head . . . it looks like a hippo . . . no, a sheep." > >A sheep? A young sheep? A *lamb*, I daresay? > >few muffled Amens> > >Yes, it all adds up. Stoned!Harry is destined to die a death as a >sacrifical lamb to spare others from an awful fate. A death >by . . . uh . . . by decapitation. > >Um, maybe JKR will think better of that particular means of Harry's >demise. There's still time for something a little less gruesome, I >think. Eloise: By your reasong above, that would be...erm....crucifixion. Just how gruesome can the end of this series be? OTOH, if we're going to keep on making Christian parallels, Christ did predict the manner of his own death, according to John's gospel (12; 32), so perhaps Dicentra's right and decapitation it is. Is the Gryffindor ghost being (nearly) decapitated (and on the same date as James and Lily's deaths) significant? (There's potentially a lot of mileage in these ghosts. What *is* Nick's backstory? Myrtle's has been of great significance.) On the matter of gruesomeness, though, I won't be surprised if things do get quite bad. I guess that Book 7 will be written with older readers in mind, given what JKR has said. That would equate with Philip Pullman's readership and there's some pretty gruesome things and some pretty dark story lines in his writing. I've winced quite a few times. So have my kids. Cindy: >Caroline wrote (about Ron and Harry rising from the table together): > >>And remember in PoA, when Harry and Ron got up together >>from the table of 13? Yep, I can see Ron bringing about Harry's >>death & dying right after > >Well, we want to stay right on canon here, so Ron and Harry have to >die *together*, not, er, sequentially. So how on earth can Ron and >Harry die together, have Harry be beheaded, and have Voldemort wind >up in the soup with them? Eloise: Well, I guess we could have some kind of cataclysmic ending, where Harry dies not by a direct action of Ron's, but in a way somehow facilitated by Ron and which mercifully takes him out at the same time (we wouldn't want Ron to survive, knowing he was the agent of Harry's death, would we?). OTOH, carrying on with the parallels, if Ron somehow betrays Harry, then perhaps he could equate to Judas, who kills himself on the day of the crucifixion, although I'd be much happier (so to speak) to see Ron going down *with* Harry. The other is too much. Unless, of course, it is Evil!Ron. Ooh, er...perhaps that's what I'm arguing for. It was Ron's fake wand that decapitated Harry's. Perhaps it will be his real wand that kills Harry. Perhaps Voldemort will use Ron's wand (as his own, of course, won't work against Harry's) and in the act of killing Harry kill himself (or render himself able to be killed) by dint of whatever connection there is between them. OTOH, there's this immortality thing to contend with. I must confess, I'm getting a bit confused here. (As Dicentra pointed out the other day, I'm prone to confusion in the middle of conversations ;-) ) Now obviously, there's a lot of Christian symbolism being brought up in this thread. There's also a lot of alchemical symbolism been brought up. Immortality in the Christian sense is not the same as immortality in the Elixir of Life sense. Ooh........ I think I'm groping towards something here. Is this another of these clash of world view things? The desire for eternal (physical) life vs. the desire for eternal (spiritual) life. Something in the ' He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.' (John, 12; 25) vein? Is it Voldemort's insatiable desire for physical life which will be his undoing, whilst Harry's embracing of the 'next great adventure' which will be his salvation? (It was only when scrabbling through the Bible (twice) to find these quotes that I realised they were both from the same passage, which also has some typically Johannine Light/ Dark symbolism. Don't know if it's significant.) And surely Harry can't just die, however heroically. Even dying to rid the WW of Voldemort is anti-climactic in a sense, isn't it? I mean, it's heroic, and supremely good and all that, but in a way it's negative, it's a ridding of the world of an evil without replacing it by a positive good. Just as the Christian myth isn't complete without the Resurrection, surely the Harry Potter myth isn't complete without Harry's death (if that is what it indeed entails) bringing about some re-ordering of the WW, releasing it from the prejudice and injustice on which we have commented time and time again. ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< Eloise, apologising for the serious vein of a post masquerading under the TBAY prefix, but adding some fish just for fun. They're confused fish, note, as they're not sure which way they're supposed to be swimming. PS. Just to make it clear, my usage of the word 'myth' in relation to Christianity isn't in any way derogatory. I'm sure I don't have to say that in this forum, but I just want to be certain. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doldra at hotmail.com Thu May 9 11:29:10 2002 From: doldra at hotmail.com (bystardust) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 11:29:10 -0000 Subject: SHIP: The Trio and the Love Triangle (I sure hope not!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38594 Lexan wrote: > Am I the only one who finds such a storyline cheesy and tacky? It > makes everything so melodramatic, soap operatic and worse, > predictable and mediocre. If ever Ron will do become evil (which I > sure doubt), I sure hope that a love triangle is NOT the reason. I'm with you. Not only am I fully against Ron-bashing, but ever since GoF came out I've been afraid that fluffiness and angst will soon take over the plots of the books. I found the Cho crush really annoying and thought that it got in the way of more important things. Don't get me wrong, I love fluffy stuff, but I think it belongs in (or would rather it stay in) fanfics. I know it's unrealistic for Harry's hormone's not to be raging; it should, however, be kept at a bare minimum and not take over too much of the plot because, frankly, I don't really feel that the books would be the same if three quarters of them were all about Harry's stormy relationship with Hermione...not even because of the fact that it would involve sex, but because the tone of the books has been so different thus far. So, in conclusion (now that I've gone off on a semi-unrelated tangent), if Ron's going to go bad at all, I -really- hope it's not going to be because of some petty crush he has on Hermione. And that's without going into my defense-of-Ron tangent (I don't believe he's such a horrible person that he'd allow something as stupid as that to pull him over to the Dark Side). --Doldra From betsyfallon at hotmail.com Thu May 9 12:40:21 2002 From: betsyfallon at hotmail.com (betsyfallon) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 12:40:21 -0000 Subject: Ron's Envy In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38595 I posted yesterday, but it got lost. I hope this one goes through. If you remember in SS, when Dumbledore is talking to Harry about the Mirror of Erised, he tells Harry that Ron is seeing what he (Ron) most desires. Ron is overshadowed by his brothers. Charlie and Bill have left Hogwarts and have great jobs. Percy was Head Boy and now works at the MoM. Fred and George are the class clowns and everyone likes them. Ron is known as Harry Potter's friend. Not just Ron Weasley. There is no Ron Weasley, only Harry's friend, Percy's brother, etc. I like the character of Ron, but I too believe that he still has issues to resolve. Obviously, he's a teenager. I previously stated that IMB that the Dark Side will try and use this envy/jealousy to try to lure Ron to its side. Ron, thinking like a teenager, might use this to achieve fame and/or fortune. He will not turn to the Dark Side, but perhaps, thinking that if acts as if he has turned, he could be a spy for Dumbledore and he will help destory LV this time. If he succeeds, his name will now be known without all the other prefixes. He will be Ron Weasley, the defeator of LV. He will have the fame he desires. But remember again, Ron is a teenager and acts and thinks like one. But I have this nagging feeling that this will ultimately lead to Ron's demise, hence the death that JKR was hinting at. Betsy From sopranoham at yahoo.com Thu May 9 12:50:11 2002 From: sopranoham at yahoo.com (Soprano Ham) Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 05:50:11 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Which 'fan' will die? In-Reply-To: <3CD9C259.FB0A6866@triton.net> Message-ID: <20020509125011.223.qmail@web13002.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38596 Hi, --- Jilly Harris wrote: > queen_of_slytherin wrote: > There are hints that someone that a fan of Harry's > will die in the > future, whichever it is. Many suspect Hagrid, many > suspect Ginny, some > suspect even Dumbledore. I'd like to add my $.02. I have heard this bandied around and JKR has mentioned it (I believe) in interviews. Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but the biggest fans of Harry seem to be the little Creavy brothers. Colin's role has been increasing steadily. So I am going to venture to guess that it may be this little cherub who gets the axe. Sop __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! http://shopping.yahoo.com From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu May 9 14:04:32 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 14:04:32 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry In-Reply-To: <14c.da58a98.2a0bcb2e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38598 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > > Ooh........ I think I'm groping towards something here. Is this >another of these clash of world view things? The desire for eternal (physical) life vs. the desire for eternal (spiritual) life. Something in the ' He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.' (John, 12; 25) vein? Is it Voldemort's insatiable desire for physical life which will be his undoing, whilst Harry's embracing of the 'next >great adventure' which will be his salvation? More than that, in Christianity, life (eternal, redemptive life) arises *through* death. The believer gains redemption by dying with Christ and Christ's death was real. (The early Christians wrangled a lot about whether His death was real or only apparent. The orthodox view became that Jesus, as a fully human being, did indeed die). So, in Christian terms, Voldemort's refusal to die is truly the ultimate evil, since he is refusing redemption (thereby condemning himself to eternal damnation? Is eternal life without the possiblity of redemption an eternal damnation?). Naama From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu May 9 14:27:01 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 14:27:01 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry & Who Will Definitely Survive? In-Reply-To: <14c.da58a98.2a0bcb2e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38599 Oh. Oh dear. I'm not sure I have the stomach for this. I might have to reconsider the whole FEATHERBOA thing. I mean, it was one thing to consider the ambush of faceless characters like Rosier and Wilkes. Now, you people are trying to *behead* a delightful orphan who just happens to be the star of the whole series. How could you? Well, let me see if I can be of any assistance. But if I'm going to help behead Harry, I need a better fish than a CARP. Something capable of actually beheading someone: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<")))))>< A swordfish. Especially for Dicey. ************************ Eloise (about the means of Harry's Hideous Demise): > By your reasong above, that would be...erm....crucifixion. Just how gruesome > can the end of this series be? OTOH, if we're going to keep on making > Christian parallels, Christ did predict the manner of his own death, > according to John's gospel (12; 32), so perhaps Dicentra's right and > decapitation it is. Oh, it's worse than that, Eloise. Far worse. What charm did Ron master in GoF? "[H]e used a Severing Charm on the ruff and cuffs. It worked fairly well; at least he was now lace-free, although he hadn't done a very neat job, and the edges still looked depressingly frayed . . . " Especially creepy is that Ron used a Severing Charm on the *ruff*. Sure, it wasn't perfect, but slicing off someone's head doesn't have to be perfect, does it? Need more evidence that someone is going to lose their head? What happens in PoA, I ask? How is Buckbeak to be executed? Of all the ways JKR could have chosen to kill Buckbeak, she chose *beheading*. Still not convinced? What is the thing Professor Trelawney wants Harry to see in the crystal ball during his divination exam? Yup, that's right. A beheading! A beheading from which Harry *saves* Buckbeak! Eloise: > Well, I guess we could have some kind of cataclysmic ending, where Harry dies > not by a direct action of Ron's, but in a way somehow facilitated by Ron and > which mercifully takes him out at the same time (we wouldn't want Ron to > survive, knowing he was the agent of Harry's death, would we?). > > OTOH, carrying on with the parallels, if Ron somehow betrays Harry, then > perhaps he could equate to Judas, who kills himself on the day of the > crucifixion, although I'd be much happier (so to speak) to see Ron going down > *with* Harry. The other is too much. Unless, of course, it is Evil! Ron. Ooh, > er...perhaps that's what I'm arguing for. Oh, but there is another parallel. What Biblical figure was beheaded? I think there was only one -- John the Baptist! So Harry is the sacrifical lamb, and Ron is John the Baptist, who, er . . . um, . . . Uh, a little help here? I need a Biblical parable where two figures are killed while fighting on a swaying catwalk over a river of molten lava. Eloise: > It was Ron's fake wand that decapitated Harry's. Perhaps it will be his real > wand that kills Harry. Perhaps Voldemort will use Ron's wand (as his own, of > course, won't work against Harry's) and in the act of killing Harry kill > himself (or render himself able to be killed) by dint of whatever connection > there is between them. Oh. My. Goodness! This is so perfect. Eloise, we just have to figure out how to have Harry and Ron die together -- at the same instant, and we'll be right there. Wow! Having Ron's spiffy new wand -- the wand Ron received after breaking his old wand on an adventure with Harry -- be the instrument of Harry's demise would be so darn ironic. Eloise: > Ooh........ I think I'm groping towards something here. Is this another of > these clash of world view things? The desire for eternal (physical) life vs. > the desire for eternal (spiritual) life. Something in the ' He that loveth > his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep > it unto life eternal.' (John, 12; 25) vein? Is it Voldemort's insatiable > desire for physical life which will be his undoing, whilst Harry's embracing > of the 'next great adventure' which will be his salvation? Oh, yes. I am so totally sold. Harry won't be immortal in the physical sense (where's the Bang in that?), but he will be immortal in the spiritual sense, where it really counts. That way, the people who don't want Harry to die can watch his spirit live on, while my FEATHERBOAS will be satisfied. A perfect compromise! Eloise: > And surely Harry can't just die, however heroically. Even dying to rid the WW > of Voldemort is anti-climactic in a sense, isn't it? I mean, it's heroic, and > supremely good and all that, but in a way it's negative, it's a ridding of > the world of an evil without replacing it by a positive good. I don't think I fully understand the idea that a sacrifice has to result in something good beyond the immediate benefit of the sacrifice. I mean, Lily sacrificed herself for Harry and rid the world of evil by reducing Voldemort to a noxious fume, and I don't think there was any positive good that filled the void. Maybe we can think of it as a straight downsizing? ;-) BTW, this whole discussion of Harry's beheading has made me wonder who, if anyone, we are *absolutely* confident will survive the series. My list of Survivors is actually quite short. I'm thinking that the minor teachers (Flitwick, Sprout) and McGonagall are safe. No way will JKR kill McGonagall, I think. Everyone else probably should watch their backs. Cindy (wondering how to draw some loaves to go with the fishes) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu May 9 14:27:35 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 14:27:35 -0000 Subject: Which 'fan' will die? In-Reply-To: <20020509125011.223.qmail@web13002.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38600 Soprano Ham wrote: > Hi, > I'd like to add my $.02. I have heard this bandied > around and JKR has mentioned it (I believe) in > interviews. Forgive me if this has been mentioned, but > the biggest fans of Harry seem to be the little Creavy > brothers. Colin's role has been increasing steadily. > So I am going to venture to guess that it may be this > little cherub who gets the axe. > > Sop The them "who will die next" has, indeed, been widely discused before in this list (ever since JKR offered us that little jewel of information). However, I'm always pleased at seeing new points of view: the more, the merrier. Obviously, Colin has been considered, since the statement "a Harry fan" fits him like a glove. Some people (and by that, I mean listees) are, however, mistrustful of this nomination on two major basis. Of course, since we're positive thinkers here (none of that "It's just impossible": if you want to pull down a theory, you've better have one to replace it), the people who disagree have their own candidates for the kill. The first idea is that JKR is anything but direct when telling things. Up till now, every book has been positively drowning in false leeds and misdirections. Some fans feel that JKR is * always* trying to mislead us and take us down the wrong path, s they try to see further and interpret her words to get a different (and hopefully, correct) interpretation. If IIRC, Hagrid has been suugested as a fan of Harry, as has Cho and Ginny. The second argument is that Colin is too much of a secondary character, thrown in as a comical relief and with little to no dialogue. The fans that use this idea say that he's just to unimportant and that JKR is thinking of killing someone else -someone who's got lines and who Harry knows better (any of the above still fit). The counter-argument is that the two times we've been presented with death in the books directly (The old man at the beggining of GoF and Cedrid Diggory at the end), bith times the deceased was a minor character as well, with short lines. My opinion, subject to change in this matter easily if heavy arguments are used, is that Colin is doomed. JKR doesn't seem to like killing major characters (she's only talked of ONE death who "will be very painful to write", near the end which I believe is going to be Ron). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From adatole at yahoo.com Thu May 9 14:42:40 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 07:42:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Which 'fan' will die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020509144240.540.qmail@web20513.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38601 I had to chime on this, given that there is a canonical history to remember: This same statement was made about GoF, at which point theorums fairly rained from the sky, filling up a sizeable portion of this part of the internet and making the kayak, hovercraft, destroyer, and other vessels even possible. And who was it? A character mentioned in just a couple of lines in the previous book. A minor character 'close to Harry' indeed, but someone who had become close (really) only during the course GoF itself. I just want to remind everyone that, while we have fewer books left to go than we have already read, there are STILL 3 entire whole books to enjoy - plenty of time for new characters to emerge. Characters (first years) not even mentioned in the last book may be star Quidditch players in OoP. There's been theories mentioned elsewhere that Harry may spend some time in another wizarding school, allowing for the introduction of an entirely new group of wizards - both friend and foe. Why are we so very focused on killing the characters we know? Leon __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! http://shopping.yahoo.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu May 9 15:31:43 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 15:31:43 -0000 Subject: FILK: Floatin' out in Theory Bay Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38602 Floatin' out in Theory Bay To the tune of "Sittin' on the Dock of the Bay" by Otis Redding Rafts and kayaks, ships and boats, We'll be boardin' anything that floats. Watchin' the theories grow; What the next one will be, we don't know. Yea, We're floatin' out in Theory Bay, Watchin' the can(n)ons fire away. Oooh We're just floatin' out in Theory Bay Till Book Five. Who was kissin' Florence That time when Bertha spied? Will Ron ever turn on Harry? Did Snape switch sides when the Potters died? We're all just stuck here floatin' out in Theory Bay, Watching the can(n)ons fire away. Oooh We're floatin' out in Theory Bay Till Book Five. Phoenix isn't comin' out. No word from Scholastic Press. We don't know the way that the plot's gonna go, So all we can do is guess. Yes Floatin' here, tradin' quips, Watchin' George hop from ship to ship. Yes Pullin' the flamingoes' tails, Drapin' FEATHERBOAS o'er the rails. We're all just floatin' out in Theory Bay, Watching the can(n)ons fire away. Oooh, Floatin' out in Theory Bay, Till Book Five. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From kierjcs at hotmail.com Thu May 9 15:07:15 2002 From: kierjcs at hotmail.com (massiveroadtrauma) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 15:07:15 -0000 Subject: Which 'fan' will die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38603 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Soprano Ham wrote: > > Colin's role has been increasing steadily. > > So I am going to venture to guess that it may be this > > little cherub who gets the axe. > > Sop > > My opinion, subject to change in this matter easily if heavy arguments > are used, is that Colin is doomed. > Grey Wolf My opinion, personally, combines the Creevey brothers view and also the speculation as to who will turn out to be the equivalent of Pettigrew, as JKR seems fond of reccurence. I think that the fan that will die will be little *Dennis* Creevey, at V's hand (wand?), and that will vex Colin so much that he turns against Harry, maybe as a spy for V. Eh. Or maybe I just spin crap. /mrt. From dicentra at xmission.com Thu May 9 16:01:37 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 16:01:37 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry & Who Will Definitely Survive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38604 Dicentra stands on the desk of the Big Bang destroyer, negotiating with its captain, Cindy. "First things first, captain." Dicentra wrestles the line of fish from Cindy ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> and twists them furiously in the opposite direction. :D <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< "You see, the Kayak is way too small already. We've got all these people on board: Eloise, Nuri, Katze, Laura, Errol, lilahp, Naama, me, you, and of course, Captain Caroline (did I forget anyone?). (Stoned!Harry doesn't need a boat: he can walk on water.) There's also Abigail and a Soprano Ham standing on the shore who might come aboard if convinced, and Amy Z, who doesn't want to get her feet wet. What we need is a sizeable berth on board the Big Bang." Cindy indicates she's listening, but she wants to know what's in it for her. "Can(n)ons!" shouts Dicentra, gesturing wildly. "What good is a destroyer without can(n)ons? And we've got more of 'em than all those other Bangy theories combined: more than TorturedToddler!Neville, more than Avery or Florence or even those smug Snapetheories! So many, in fact, that the kayak is taking on water. Can the crew come aboard while we negotiate?" Cindy assents and the crew climbs the ladder, each lugging a heavy can(n)on. Now Dicentra has Cindy's attention, as she's found the ill-tempered Snapetheories lurking about the ship to have become quite wearysome. Dicentra points at the first can(n)on. "You've already seen this one: the Argument from Alchemy, which shows that the symbols linked to the Philosopher's Stone are also linked closely to Harry: red, green, stag, phoenix, serpent, lion, unicorn." She indicates the second: "Now there's the one from GoF, where Ron and Harry make a bunch of 'phony' predictions: Harry's last prediction is his own beheading." And a third: "And the scene later when Ron's tin parrot takes the head off Harry's rubber haddock." Four: "And the tea leaves: a cross and possibly a lamb." Five: "Yew trees. Symbols of immortality. All over the place during the graveyard scene. (We're going to ignore Eloise's protests that yews are common in British graveyards and so they Don't Count as symbols.)" Six: "One name for the Philosopher's Stone is cinnabar: Persian for dragon's blood, for which the probable orchestrator of Harry's destiny has found 12 uses." Cindy is getting really interested now. Six Can(n)ons! That's more than LOLLIPOPS has! "Wait! There's more!" cries Dicentra "We haven't even covered the second aspect of the Philosopher's Stone--gold!" She points to a host of solid gold can(n)ons. "What's one of the first things Harry knows about himself as a wizard? That he's got piles and piles of gold in a Grigott's vault! And as he's walking through Diagon Alley for the first time, Hagrid has to dissuade him from buying a solid gold cauldron. And his role in Quidditch is to seize the Golden Snitch. And when he picks up a Niffler in GoF, the thing sticks his nose in Harry's ear and sniffs exitedly. In fact, he's so loaded with gold he doesn't even notice when the leprechaun gold Ron gives him dissapears, and he has no problem handing the bag of gold he won from the tournament to Fred and George." Dicentra waits, expectantly. Cindy runs her hands longingly over the solid gold can(n)ons. "We've also got a few Biblical can(n)ons we can drag aboard..." Cindy indicates a row of such can(n)ons she posted just minutes before. "Oh, did I forget? We've now got an acronym. But we can't let Stoned!Harry see it. It'll break his heart." Dicentra takes a Golden Snitch out of her pocket and hurls it out over the bay. Stoned!Harry, even in his usual dazed state of confusion, still knows what to do with a snitch and chases after it. Dicentra unrolls the banner: P.H.I.L.O.S.O.P.H.E.R.'S. S.T.O.N.E. (Poor Harry's Immortality's Likely Over. Sadly, Omens & Prophecies Have Exposed Rowling's Secret. Surely This Occurence is Not Essential!) "It's a deal, then?" Cindy shakes Dicentra's hand enthusiastically and begins to shoo the lurking Snapetheories from the upper decks. Dicentra high-fives the crew. "WooHoo! We've got a new home. Just keep the kayak tied to the destroyer. We can use it to go after Stoned!Harry if he gets too close to that ship LOLLIPOPS. Too much stuff there he shouldn't know, either. He does have a tendency to wander off." In the milling about, Captain Caroline and Captain Cindy abruptly come face to face. Cindy doesn't like the way Caroline is eyeing the bridge of the Big Bang. (Cindy might want to sleep with that captain's hat under her pillow, if you catch my meaning.) Dicentra rolls up the PHILOSOPHER'S STONE banner and stows it with the maps in the Big Bang's navigation room to keep it from Harry and, frankly, from that blonde can(n)on manufacturer in Scotland. If SHE sees it, she might stop making can(n)ons, now that we know Harry's fate. --Dicentra, stretching out on a comfy berth for a nap, twirling her FEATHERBOA, and twanging the nose of the swordfish Cindy gave her <<<<<<<<<<<<"((>< From pennylin at swbell.net Thu May 9 16:17:43 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 11:17:43 -0500 Subject: The Prank; Ron's Envy; SHIP: including those "cheezy" love triangle theories References: Message-ID: <029f01c1f775$0c5c1480$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38605 Hi -- THE PRANK -- Nuria posited a fascinating theory about how the Prank might have occurred: <<<>>>>> I was actually thinking of a similar scenario the other day but never got a chance to post it. What if, while James was saving Snape, Sirius was actually sitting in detention under the watchful gaze of Professor McGonagall? As I see it, there are a number of possibilities as to why Sirius wasn't involved in extricating Snape from the dangerous effects of the Prank. I like what Nuria has suggested too: maybe he was with Lupin (would Lupin even have any memory of this? I don't think so). I agree with whoever argued (sorry, was it Dicey?) that Sirius may not actually be unrepentant about the Prank. She noted that he might instead simply be too proud or too ashamed to admit he was wrong. I think this is very much in keeping with Sirius' character and might go a ways toward explaining what I have believed could be an inconsistent characterization of Sirius. There's just so much we don't know about the Prank. What did Snape say or do to motivate Sirius to tell him how to follow them? What were Sirius' intentions? Who alerted James? Where was Sirius during James's rescue of Snape? What, other than forbidding Snape to say a word about Lupin being a werewolf, did Dumbledore do about the Prank? What does Sirius really think now? Lots of questions & no answers... RON'S ENVY -- Naama argued: <<>>>>>> I agree that Ron was in denial about his true feelings, but I think it was pretty clear to many readers. I didn't need Hermione to voice it for me anyway. The comment about the "photo shoot" said it pretty plainly to me. <<<<>>>>>>>>> Now on this point, I'm not so sure. I don't think it was really & truly until he saw how much danger Harry was in during the First Task that Ron finally saw the light. That's always been my interpretation. Now, he may have been going to try & make amends the night he comes down into the Common Room, that's true. But, I don't think there's any evidence that he's worked through the root cause of his anger at Harry. At least, there's nothing in the dialogue between them that night in the Common Room or in the tent after the First Task that leads me to believe that he has. <<<>>>>> I think you make a good case that Ron might be making some steps toward coming to grips with his envy of Harry. But, I think it's too soon to conclude that he's *fully resolved* his issues. I think I'll wait & see how he reacts at the next big crisis point. SHIP: WARNING -- SHIPS IN THE WATER AHEAD -- Aldrea argued: <<<<<>>>>> In the words of his creator, from a Scholastic chat in Feb 2000: Q: Is Harry Potter ever going to fall in love with Hermione or is he going to fall in love with Ginny Weasley? A: In Book IV Harry does decide he likes a girl, but it's not Hermione or Ginny. However, he's only 14, so there's plenty of time for him to change his mind. ;-) I'm focusing on the "he's only 14 and so there's time to change his mind" aspect, btw. I emphasize that he's never given Ginny Weasley a second thought either, but there are scores of people hoping he eventually will. People do change their minds about their friends in terms of romance. Happens *all* the time in the real world. In fact, since wizards live much longer lives than muggles (per JKR & her statement that Dumbledore is 150 for example). Why *would* witches & wizards pair off & marry early? Wouldn't it be better to have fun & play the field & find the right person ... knowing full well that your biological clock isn't going to begin ticking until your 70s (assuming double the life span, a witch could have babies into her 90s). Yeah, I don't think it's set in stone that Harry must end up with Cho since that's the only girl he's ever had romantic interest in so far. :--) Aldrea again: <<> And Ron hasn't? <<>>>>> Not always. I personally think the whole "opposites attract" thing is a bit cliched, but that may be because I don't see too much evidence for it happening very often in real life myself (I mean more than just my own personal circumstances ... but family & friends as well). Michelle said: <<<>>>>>> :::waves at Michelle, haven't seen you lately since I haven't been visiting the FictionAlley SCUSA boards:::: Actually, I don't think it would take much maneuvering at all -- there's a perfect set-up as lead-in from GoF. As for the "why," I think I'll just trust that JKR will continue writing books that I'll love & obsess over (even if that includes things I would find cliched & cheezy, like One Big Happy Weasley Family as an ending). Since the fact that the kids will be "15 & hormonal" was one of the things she highlighted in the BBC piece in December, I'd say she's planning something. Remains to be seen how much it will end up being and whether it will be dramatic/angsty or humorous relief or something in-between. It'd be perfectly plausible to have a love triangle that provides comic relief (rather than drama, angst, and betrayal) for example. They *are* just 15 -- so miscommunications, raging hormones, noone ending up with their preferred love interest ... gee, that all sounds like perfectly normal adolescent stuff to me. <<>>>>>>>>> Ah, that's too bad. I think JKR has done such a great job so far of balancing all the different plot points; I can't imagine anything she might do that would "ruin" the series for me. Yeah, I'm just going to leave it in her capable hands. Worked so far. Lexan said: <<<>>> Ah, yes. Acknowledge literary classics have *never* used love triangles. :::cough::: Little Women, Jane Eyre, Tale of Two Cities, David Copperfield, Tom Jones, Emma, A Passage to India, Paul Scott's "Raj Quartet" -- just to name a few. Yeah, great literature never uses anything so silly & cliched as a love triangle. I think I'll just trust that JKR will give us realistic adolescence without turning the series into the wizarding world equivalent of Dawson's Creek or a Harlequin romance. I feel utterly & completely confident that she's capable of this. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmt59home at aol.com Thu May 9 15:21:04 2002 From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 15:21:04 -0000 Subject: Neville: and some random thoughts. In-Reply-To: <013b01c1f61d$2e107700$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38606 Lots of Questions here! sorry if i repeat anything that's been said. Just been re-reading some of the scenes with Neville (despite having a huge project to complete and exams to START revising for which start next week!!)And there are a few things that still bug me. In POA, before he takes on the boggart... Lupin says ... "Neville, I belive you live with your grandmother?" "Er yes" said Neville nervously "But I don't want the boggart to turn into her either" Is Neville really that scared of his gran or is it just that he doesn't want to hurt even something that looks like a member of his own family? And what is he nervous about, the boggart or people asking him why he was bought up with his gran? WHY? I don't understand why Neville hasn't mentioned his parents to anyone? Could it be that he is intimidated by Harry? Harry has had a lot of attention because of his parents, Neville doesn't like attention very much or feels that people will just see him as trying to be a copycat? Or does he feel responsiable in a way, to what happened, is there more to his story then meets the eye? I think there is something for that last question because after Moody's lesson in TGOF, Neville say (in a high voice) "oh hello", intresting lesson wasn't it? I wonder what's for dinner, I'm starving aren't you?" "Neville, are you alright" said Hermione "oh yes I'm fine" said Neville in that same unnaturally high voice "very intresting dinner - I mean lesson - what's for eating?" Neville is in fact trying to say the same thing twice!!! A bit of a silly thing to do especially as they heard it the first time and acknowledged it. He phrases it the same why too! But why does he repeat it and get the second time wrong. Is it something to do with the fact that he is trying to forget what he saw because he had witnessed or is it a side effect of of memory charm? If it is the latter, then the who and why questions arise again. Also Neville talks in a very high voice after the dementors enter the train in POA. Also in TGOF, after the opening feast, when they vare talking about the tournement " I'd expect my gran'd want to try, though, she's is always going on about how I should be upholding the family honour. I'll just have to - oops" as he gets his foot stuck in the stairs. But what was he going to say? Was he going to say that he'll try and find a way into the tournement or an excuse not to even try to enter? And on a random side note, is Neville allowed into Hogmeads now becasue in POA, McGonagall banned him from all future Hogsmead visits, was that just for the third year or no? I still say, that Gran is hiding something, she cries when Neville can do magic, she won't take him to the world cup, she's is very sever with him and she wants him to uphold the family name. I don't get it!!! Yet despit having family honour, no one seems to know anything about him or his family, Ron didn't know who he was, and there is never any mention of his family except when Neville is talking about them and the way he does, it seems that the yare on par with the Malfoys?! I don't think Neville is anything like Pettigrew, everyone says that because of Harry imagination in POA. Neville is quiet powerful because surely the caldrons have some sort of charm on the to stop them melting in a ways to cause an acciedent especially in school where anythong could happen. Even in the muggle world, it'll take some doing to melt pewter that casualy. *Sigh* I'm really worried about Neville, I'm really fond of him!! Anyway, answers to the usual address ;) One very anxious, confused and naughty (must get on with my project and revision) Dogberry From siskiou at earthlink.net Thu May 9 16:39:28 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 09:39:28 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Which 'fan' will die? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <184392856955.20020509093928@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38607 Hi, Thursday, May 09, 2002, 8:07:15 AM, massiveroadtrauma wrote: > I think that the fan that will die will be little *Dennis* Creevey, > at V's hand (wand?), and that will vex Colin so much that he turns > against Harry, maybe as a spy for V. I can see him be mad at Harry, thinking that if Harry wasn't going to Hogwarts, LV's attention might be focused elsewhere. But why would he side with his brother's murderer? -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 9 17:43:36 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 17:43:36 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry & Who Will Definitely Survive? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38608 Dicentra wrote: >>>> Now Dicentra has Cindy's attention, as she's found the ill-tempered Snapetheories lurking about the ship to have become quite wearysome. "It's a deal, then?" Cindy shakes Dicentra's hand enthusiastically and begins to shoo the lurking Snapetheories from the upper decks. Dicentra high-fives the crew.<<<<<<<<<< Pippin, heavily wrapped in cape, muffler and sunglasses, is enjoying a sunlit stroll on the on the deck of the good ship LOLLIPOPS when she notices a commotion across the Bay. What's this? Snapetheories are being dissed! She longs to rescue them but...she knows the rules... Pippin whips out her binoculars, which are really hard to use while you have sunglasses on, and scans the shoreline. What's this? Yes, two can(n)ons, overlooked by Dicentra. Pippin launches a lifeboat, hastily loads the can(n)ons aboard, rows over to the Big Bang and begs Captain Cindy to accept these can(n)ons in exchange for any Snapetheories who feel they are no longer welcome on the Big Bang. Marina, always in favor of reaching out to the ill-treated, stands on the shoreline and applauds. Pippin totes the can(n)ons onto the deck of the Big Bang: "I believe you overlooked this," she says, putting one can(n)on in place beside Dicentra's third. ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> > > "And the scene later when Ron's tin parrot takes the head off Harry's > rubber haddock." A haddock, may I remind you, is a fish! Yes, Harry's wand turned into a symbol of a major biblical figure. And speaking of that major biblical figure, weren't we just wondering why Harry had to spend *three* days unconscious in the hospital wing in PS/SS, when there was no plot reason for him to do so? ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> Could it be P.H.I.L.O.S.O.P.H.E.R.S.S.T.O.N.E.? Dicentra and Cindy nod appreciatively, accept Pippin's can(n)ons, and the grateful Snapetheories, glad to know someone had pity on their plight, swarm aboard the lifeboat. Pippin rows back toward the LOLLIPOPS, hoping that another ship will soon appear to give these refugees a permanent home. Pippin glad that somebody explained what those <"))>< thingies were supposed to be and hoping nobody will claim that the Snapetheories are doomed to wander the Bay until they acknowledge Stoned!Harry's true significance. (j/k) From gideoner4 at yahoo.com Thu May 9 17:57:30 2002 From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (queen_of_slytherin) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 17:57:30 -0000 Subject: Which 'fan' will die? In-Reply-To: <184392856955.20020509093928@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38609 I believe it will be Hagrid. No, I don't have any theories on why Hagrid, except for the oddly fatalistic statements he said in GoF. >From GoF, pp 718-719, Revised American Edition: "Knew he was goin' ter come back," said Hagrid, and Harry, Ron, and Hermione looked up at him, shocked. "Known it fer years. Harry. Knew he was out there, bidin' his time. It had ter happen. Well, now it has, an' we'll jus' have ter get on with it. We'll fight..." And "What's comin' will come, an we'll meet it when it does..." Hagrid said those.It sent me chills up my spine. It may be rather overreacting on my part, but there's almost like a foreshadow in what he said. But hey, that's just me. I just don't believe that the fan will be Colin, Dennis, or Ginny. The term "fan of Harry" makes me immediately one of the three of them, and so do other people. I don't thinl JK will give such an obvious clue to the plot. ~Lexan From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu May 9 18:08:16 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 18:08:16 -0000 Subject: Neville: and some random thoughts. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38610 Dogberry wrote: > Lots of Questions here! sorry if i repeat anything that's been said. > Just been re-reading some of the scenes with Neville (despite having > a huge project to complete and exams to START revising for which > start next week!!)And there are a few things that still bug me. I'm not, by my reckoning, a Neville expert, but still, offering theories is what I'm here for, so I'm going to give it a try. If anyone disagrees, feel free to say so (not that you need the reminder, but anyway...) > In POA, before he takes on the boggart... > Lupin says ... "Neville, I belive you live with your grandmother?" > "Er yes" said Neville nervously "But I don't want the boggart to turn > into her either" > Is Neville really that scared of his gran or is it just that he > doesn't want to hurt even something that looks like a member of his > own family? He's definetely afraid of her. She's a very hard woman, and even Harry is afraid of her, and he doesn't even know her. I know she's Neville's family, but that doesn't mean that -even if Neville loves her- he can't be scared of her temper (or temper-tantrums). If you ever watched Heidi, think of Mrs. Rottenmeyer or even the Grandfather at the beggining of the story (especially the latter, since Heidi loved him but was afraid nontheless). > And what is he nervous about, the boggart or people > asking him why he was bought up with his gran? He would be nervous about the boggart, since Neville is not too brave, and he knows that, when facing his worst fear, he's going to loose the fight (until he gets a weapon against that fear, that is) > WHY? I don't understand why Neville hasn't mentioned his parents to > anyone? Could it be that he is intimidated by Harry? Harry has had a > lot of attention because of his parents, Neville doesn't like > attention very much or feels that people will just see him as trying > to be a copycat? It is very hard to talk about something like that to strangers. Having no direct family, and to admit you've been brought up by someone different than your real parents can be very hard, especially if you're afraid of people wanting to know more, as in Neville's case. Neville lives in a world of fear, since he's never had a loving mother or father figure that protected him form those fears and taught him how to face them. His grandmother, as far as I can tell, is not loving. protective, yes, and she's taken good care of Neville over the years, but she hasn't been a good substiute of a mother. No, I don't think he's intimidated by Harry's fame or they similarities. He's, simply, afraid of strangers and, since he hasn't got any close friends he can trust (if I was him, I would NOT trust a group that hitted me with a "petrificus totalis" and then left me there), he hasn't confided in someone enough to tell those -so very private- facts of his life. > Or does he feel responsiable in a way, to what happened, is there > more to his story then meets the eye? There are, indeed several members who have devised theories that have any number of cruel and dark theories around that scene, incluing the famous TOADKEEPER, which has his parents souls infused into Trevor. Ask aruound, and you'll probably get many different possibilities of "more to the story than meets the eye". > I think there is something for that last question because after > Moody's lesson in TGOF, Neville say (in a high voice) > Neville is in fact trying to say the same thing twice!!! A bit of a > silly thing to do especially as they heard it the first time and > acknowledged it. He phrases it the same why too! But why does he > repeat it and get the second time wrong. Is it something to do with > the fact that he is trying to forget what he saw because he had > witnessed or is it a side effect of of memory charm? If it is the > latter, then the who and why questions arise again. Also Neville > talks in a very high voice after the dementors enter the train in > POA. Neville's reaction is perfectly reasonable from a very basic point of view: he's been VERY shacken by the Crucio spell. He has heard the recounting of what happened to his parents (how else would he know the Crucio spell?), and he's terribly afraid of the pain that maddened them, since he has seen what it can do to a human being. He simply cannot overcome it, and is trying to think about something else -anything- but isn't working. > *Sigh* I'm really worried about Neville, I'm really fond of him!! > Anyway, answers to the usual address ;) > One very anxious, confused and naughty (must get on with my project > and revision) > Dogberry Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From starling823 at yahoo.com Thu May 9 18:31:44 2002 From: starling823 at yahoo.com (starling823) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 18:31:44 -0000 Subject: Book 5 info (from CNN.com) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38611 There's an article that I've just noticed on CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/2002/SHOWBIZ/books/05/09/harry.potter.ap/index.html According to the article, which manages to be completely non- informative, the book could be published anywhere from the end of this year to at some mysterious point in the 2003 fiscal year (that being, an entire year from now.) The major points: JKR's still writing. None of the publishing companies have any clue what's going on. The publishing companies don't even agree with each other! eeps. Well, if this is a preview, I better not be getting my hopes up for six and seven. Abbie, who should really be writing her last papers so she can graduate uni already, but is still hoping JKR gets a visit from her muse sometime soon. From margdean at erols.com Thu May 9 18:16:48 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 14:16:48 -0400 Subject: "Dark Ages"?! References: Message-ID: <3CDABD10.3850FB05@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38612 aldrea279 wrote: > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bystardust" wrote: > > It's true--the WW does seem to have held on better than muggles to > > old-fashioned ways of life (for example, quills and parchment), but > > that's what I find confusing: in some ways, the WW seems very > > separated from ours, but in other ways the line between the two > > worlds is blurred. > > Yes, it does indeed. But I'm thinking the WW and the Muggle world > branched from each other a long time ago. The story about the > founding of Hogswarts makes me believe strongly in this. I don't > know the exact qoute(I'm almost sure it's somewheres in Cos), but it > mentions that when the school was founded there was alot of bad > prejudice about wizards or something of the kind. I just immediately > think of the Dark Ages(that'd be back some hundred years in England, > around the time they still had parchment/quills and governesses, I'd > say...). And I agree with draco382, in that it seems as though this > merging of Muggle and WW seems to be rather new. *cough cough* My dear Aldrea, one hundred years back doesn't take one anywhere near the Dark Ages properly so called. Late Victorian/early Edwardian period, more like, and already well past quills and parchment. Unless you meant "some hundreds of years," which is more accurate. Actually, "more than a thousand years" would be needed to reach the true Dark Ages, if I'm not mistaken: historically they begin with the fall of Rome, which occurred in the fifth century A.D. --Margaret Dean From elizabeth_culmer at hotmail.com Thu May 9 19:38:39 2002 From: elizabeth_culmer at hotmail.com (elizabeth_culmer) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 19:38:39 -0000 Subject: Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38613 Susanne asked if people dislike Ron because they think he will betray Harry's trust and join Voldemort. Penny countered that >[There] is a *possibility* that Ron *could* betray Harry >*unintentionally.* There's a huge difference though in saying that >you believe Ron will join the Dark side of his own accord and saying >that you think there's a chance that Ron's problems with Imperius >Curse are a possible set-up for an unwitting betrayal. I also >think there's a *chance* that a love interest (Hermione) who spurned >him for Harry might cause Ron to take rash action. Ron is an >emotional person after all. Again though, I see this as more likely >just a rash deed that goes awry rather than a calculated betrayal. >I do think Ron's flaws make him at least slightly more susceptible >to manipulation by the Dark side. Susanne also asked if people think Ron will go bad because he's a present-day equivalent of Peter Pettigrew, and therefore _has_ to go bad. Actually, wouldn't the most accurate parallel for Ron, as a potential bad guy, be Sirius? After all, Sirius did inadvertently betray James and Lily by talking them into using Peter as their Secret-Keeper. He himself says that he as good as killed them, and when Harry accuses him of murdering his parents, he says, "I don't deny it." He also has established character flaws, as seen in the Prank (which does not reflect well upon him, whatever his intentions were). Yet nobody seems to suggest that Sirius wasn't worthy of the other Marauders, or that James and Lupin should have been more wary of him. So if Sirius, who is unquestionably guilty of an inadvertent betrayal, is not hated, and people don't want to thrust him out of the way, why do people distrust Ron for the mere _possibility_ that he might someday fall into a situation where he inadvertently harms Harry and/or the general side of good? Why do they harp so much on his character flaws, which so far have not led to anything nearly as dangerous as the Prank? Hugs, Elizabeth P.S. New here. Hi. *waves feebly and hides* From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu May 9 20:55:14 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 20:55:14 -0000 Subject: TBAY: ToadKeeper Meets Reverse Memory Charm Neville (WAS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38614 Jtdogberry wrote: > *Sigh* I'm really worried about Neville, I'm really fond of him!! Well, there's good reason to be worried for Neville. I know I am. ;-) Jtdogberry: > In POA, before he takes on the boggart... > Lupin says ... "Neville, I belive you live with your grandmother?" > "Er yes" said Neville nervously "But I don't want the boggart to turn > into her either" > Is Neville really that scared of his gran or is it just that he > doesn't want to hurt even something that looks like a member of his > own family? What's this? It looks like . . . but it can't be . . . but *it is*! It's a brand new canon for ToadKeeper I! Hold on a minute, Jtdogberry. . . . . . . All right, people. Listen up. I know you're all mightily sick of ToadKeeper. I am at peace with that, I really am. I'm not even bitter about it anymore. But Jtdogberry has worked very hard and dug up a brand new canon in the flowerbed, and I am bound and determined to mount it on ToadKeeper I before Tabouli shows up and sneaks off with it. If you really can't stand it, get to work on the ToadKeeper Challenge and come up with a new, canon-based Trevor theory. ToadKeeper III is sitting by the dock, just waiting for some brave soul to take it for a spin. Go on, get busy. . . . . Right, then. Where was I? Oh, yes. The new canon. ToadKeeper I is a theory that explains Trevor's importance and makes sense of why Neville is chasing a useless toad all over Hogwarts. The idea is that the Longbottoms deposited their souls in Trevor when Mrs. Lestrange started letting loose with all those Cruciatus Curses. Neville is the ToadKeeper and is trying to work a spell to restore his parents. That's the general idea. Well, when ToadKeeper I was first launched, there was a (now thoroughly debunked) objection that there is no way that Trevor contains the souls of the Longbottoms. If that were true, the objection went, Gran would be hysterical when Neville loses Trevor instead of being merely exasperated. The answer there is that Gran is not the Witch Harry makes her out to be. She does plenty of kind things in canon, after all. And that's where Jtdogberry's sparkling new canon comes in. Neville doesn't want the boggart to turn into Gran because Neville *adores* his Gran. He doesn't want to work a spell to banish even her boggart image. In fact, poor, lonely orphaned Neville loves his Gran so deeply that he would rather face boggart Snape than boggart Gran. Neville and Gran are *close*, so it makes sense that Gran would support Neville in his efforts to revive his parents rather than rip him for letting Trevor stray. Excuse me . . . Just . . . Just give me just a minute. . . . Look away . . . There's nothing to see here. . . . OK, that's better. Jtdogberry has another question: > Also in TGOF, after the opening feast, when they vare talking >about the tournement > " I'd expect my gran'd want to try, though, she's is always going >on about how I should be upholding the family honour. I'll just >have to - oops" as he gets his foot stuck in the stairs. But what >was he going > to say? Oh, ToadKeeper I knows *exactly* what Neville was going to say there: "She's always going on about how I should be upholding the family honour. I'll just have to find a way to . . . work that dastardly ToadKeeper spell and restore my parents so that I'll actually *have* a family to honour." Or words to that effect. ;-) Jtdogberry (about the melted cauldrons): >Neville is quiet powerful > because surely the caldrons have some sort of charm on the to stop > them melting in a ways to cause an acciedent especially in school > where anythong could happen. Even in the muggle world, it'll take > some doing to melt pewter that casualy. Hmmm. Possibly a side-effect of the training Neville is receiving at St. Mungos to revive his parents under the ToadKeeper I theory? After all, ToadKeeper says Neville is learning to work some *serious* magic at St. Mungos, very different from the wimpy potions Snape is teaching. Jtdogberry again: >Is it something to do with > the fact that he is trying to forget what he saw because he had > witnessed or is it a side effect of of memory charm? If it is the > latter, then the who and why questions arise again. Ooooooh! A chance to revive Reverse Memory Charm Neville *and* reconcile it with ToadKeeper I! JTdogberry, this is a dream come true! It is truly unprecedented! Pull up a M.A.T.C.H.I.N.G.A.R.M.C.H.A.I.R (Marooned at the Court Hearing, Ill-fated Neville Got a Reverse Memory Charm, Hatching Amnesia-Invoking Results) and put your feet up. I'll scout around for some of those mini-quiche things and some mimosas. OK. Where to start? Yes, I think there's *way* more than meets the eye when it comes to Memory Charms. You see, I count myself among the few people (not nearly enough to justify their many acronyms, though) who flatly refuse to entertain the idea that Neville has a Traditional Memory Charm like the one put on Bertha Jorkins and the Roberts. The Memory Charm idea is that Neville witnesses his parents' torture, so he was given a Memory Charm to spare him the pain of these memories. Someday, Neville will fight through this Memory Charm and will become a SuperWizard, the story goes. Or the spell will be lifted, perhaps, claim the Memory Charm advocates. Pah! shriek the Reverse Memory Charm crowd! We believe that there is *no way* Neville has a Traditional Memory Charm. When pressed, we turn to the timeline of the Longbottoms' torture. Neville was born in 1980; Voldemort fell in October 1981. The Longbottoms were tortured afterward, when everyone felt safe. If we assume Neville was born Jan. 1, 1980 and the torture occured in Feb. 1982, then Neville can be no older than 26 months old -- far too young to have memories of the torture. If you pick a later date for Neville's birthday, he gets even younger and even less able to remember. So, we jeer, why would anyone put a Memory Charm on Toddler Neville to help him forget something he is much too young to remember anyway, particularly if it will damage his memory and impair his magical ability? Ah, but what about a *Reverse* Memory Charm? See, Mrs. Lestrange's gang was caught and convicted based on *something.* It certainly wasn't based on testimony of the insane Longbottoms. MoM was under intense pressure to catch the culprits, so Crouch Sr. might have ordered a Reverse Memory Charm on Neville to *enhance* his memory of the events to identify the Lestranges and their gang. The result, the theory goes, is that Neville constantly re-lives the torture of his parents because of his enhanced memory. This causes him to freak out in the presence of dementors and in the presence of Moody, who, according to the theory, might have been the one to put the Reverse Memory Charm on Neville. (For a more complete Reverse Memory Charm Neville backstory, check out Message 35,720 and thereabouts). It also causes him to be forgetful, as in this scene with Snape: "Tell me, boy, does anything penetrate that thick skull of yours? Didn't you hear me say, quite clearly, that only one rat spleen was needed? Didn't I state plainly that a dash of leech juice would suffice?" Actually, no, Neville didn't catch those instructions, what with all of the magically magnified *shrieking* he was hearing instead. And where does ToadKeeper I come in? ToadKeeper I is the *cure* for Reverse Memory Charm Neville. Once Neville works the ToadKeeper I spell successfully, he will have his parents back. They will give him 14 years worth of love. Their tortured screams will be replaced by their words of praise for Neville for bringing honour to the family. It will be beautiful, just beautiful . . . Yes, it all fits, and it is pretty darn Bang-worthy, too. Cindy (who noticed that ToadKeeper I lacks an acronym, and who is trying not to take it personally) *********************** Hypothetic Alley is at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% 20Files/hypotheticalley.htm From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Thu May 9 22:08:28 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 22:08:28 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38615 Much thanks, Cindy, for giving us a deck on the Big Bang Destroyer. Rowing a kayak is just so much work, isn't it? And Stoned!Harry really isn't doing much to help, is he? Here, Harry. Have a bag of chips. A few more can(n)ons to add to Dicentra's excellent list 1. Harry's holly wand . symbol of rebirth, Christ, etc. 2. The griffin of Gryffindor symbol of salvation 3. Willow and stag are both symbols of the Tree of Life 4. Willow is also a symbol of miraculous births. (And, Dicentra, I'm not too worried about Eloise's protests either. `Cause even if yews always hang about graveyards, it's still Quite Significant that yew is V's wand wood.) Errol wrote: <<:tries to put uneasy feeling into words: but..why would Voldmort try to kill Harry again & again if he knew he was immortal, and thus unkillable? If one argues that he didn't know about the living stone part, then there would be no reason to go after Harry, would there?>> There, there. Don't worry; I have an answer! Actually, I can offer two, and you can take your pick. My pet theory (Bangier, I think) is that Voldemort wasn't really trying to kill Harry that night. At least, not right away. Nope, he was Up to Something Else, trying to suck out Harry's immortality somehow. That's why there weren't swarms of DE's around when Sirius, etc. got there. That's why the death of the Potters wasn't just delegated to someone else. V. was on a personal mission that only he and Wormtail knew about. (Remember, we only have Fake!Moody's word that Harry's been AK'd!!) You don't like that one? Well, if you go with the "AK is unforgivable because it steals souls theory," AK-ing Harry would allow V. to absorb all of his powers. As to why he keeps trying: Well, that explains the gleam, you know! V. thinks now that he's got Harry's blood, he doesn't need Harry around for immortality anymore! He can just experiment on himself. So Dumbledore's gleaming `cause he realizes V. doesn't fully understand how all this stuff works. And he figures V. may leave Harry alone for a bit while trying his doomed-to-fail immortality experiments. Nuri wrote about the Slytherin super-sized meal: < Correct me if I'm wrong, please: hadn't JKR said somewhere Lily was a Gryffindor? and what do you mean by the wording in CoS and deliberate error?>> See, here again, this is an optional up-size. I'm not too sure about it myself, to tell you the truth. But it would be bangy, yes? Sure, JKR said Lily was a Gryffindor. That's part of the appeal of Lily- Heir-of-Slytherin: it's about choices, not birth. Sure, she might have Slytherin blood, but Lily chose Gryffindor, much like her son did. The "deliberate error" thing: Dumbledore tells Harry in CoS (in my edition, anyway) that Voldemort is the last "ancestor" of Slytherin, when Harry expresses fear that he might be related to Slytherin. Here's JKR's reply, when asked about it: "Ah, you spotted the deliberate error. Yes, it should read "descendent." That's been changed in subsequent editions. (Keep hold of the "ancestor" one, maybe it'll be valuable one day!)" http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/transcript2.htm The question is, what does she mean by deliberate... ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< Satisfied with her day's work, Captain Caroline heads across the deck for a little relaxation... (decides to use both Cindy & Dicentra's fish to help keep relations friendly among the crew.) Caroline --always thrilled to help displace a few Snapetheories (except GOLDSIEVE, of course) From Ahketsi at aol.com Thu May 9 21:33:00 2002 From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com) Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 17:33:00 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry/Mother's Love Message-ID: <1bf.1551ed9.2a0c450c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38616 "None of them actively chose death rather than standing aside and watching their loved ones die. It's this extra level of sacrifise that protected Harry from AK, not simply the fact that his mother died before him." -Abigail Why though? Why was Lily given the choice? Why didn't Voldie just kill her off right away? And another thing, bypassing that question, how come he had to kill her first? If he would rather just hurry up and kill the kid, then why could he just use some spell to get Lily out of the way and kill the kid? The second question could probably be resolved by some bit of magic Lily used that Voldemort couldn't break without killing her, but it's the first question that really bothers me. But if we're going to ask that question, then the second more obvious question really goes right along with it-why did Voldemort want to kill Harry so much? He was just this baby, and it seems like there was more to it than "he just felt like it", especially since he tried to let Harry's mother go. -Ahketsi From doldra at hotmail.com Thu May 9 21:54:55 2002 From: doldra at hotmail.com (bystardust) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 21:54:55 -0000 Subject: Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione/The Prank and The Choking In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38617 --- Elizabeth wrote: > Susanne also asked if people think Ron will go bad because he's a > present-day equivalent of Peter Pettigrew, and therefore _has_ to go > bad. > > Actually, wouldn't the most accurate parallel for Ron, as a potential > bad guy, be Sirius? After all, Sirius did inadvertently betray James > and Lily by talking them into using Peter as their Secret-Keeper. He > himself says that he as good as killed them, and when Harry accuses > him of murdering his parents, he says, "I don't deny it." He also > has established character flaws, as seen in the Prank (which does not > reflect well upon him, whatever his intentions were). Yet nobody > seems to suggest that Sirius wasn't worthy of the other Marauders, or > that James and Lupin should have been more wary of him. > > So if Sirius, who is unquestionably guilty of an inadvertent > betrayal, is not hated, and people don't want to thrust him out of > the way, why do people distrust Ron for the mere _possibility_ that > he might someday fall into a situation where he inadvertently harms > Harry and/or the general side of good? Why do they harp so much on > his character flaws, which so far have not led to anything nearly as > dangerous as the Prank? First of all: Hi, Elizabeth! I like this theory a lot. Ron and Sirius, now that you say it, match up a lot better than Ron and Peter do. In my opinion, Ron and Peter don't match up at all and I don't really see how that one got started. I guess it's because both Ron and Peter are overshadowed by their friends (you could even say that Ron is so disgusted with Peter at the end of PoA because he sees a little of himself in the traitor, along with the obvious "you slept on my pillow" reason), but that's pretty much as far as similarities go, I think. Ron's character is a -lot- stronger than Peter's; while Peter lets himself be entirely overshadowed (or so we see from the precious little discussion of that time period in the books), Ron is only overshadowed in the vaguest sense. If he has an opinion on something, he makes himself heard; if he thinks that Harry's in trouble for whatever reason, he does everything in his power to reverse the situation (examples: warning Harry about supposedly dangerous Sirius Black; voicing his bad feelings about the Mirror of Erised); he might be arguably pettier than Harry, but that's because Harry is truly one of a kind (he has his problems, but he's as close to perfect as one can get), so it's not really fair to compare the two on that level, or indeed on most levels. What I'm trying to say is that I don't really think Ron and Peter are accurate parallels...maybe Peter's going bad indicated that he was something that didn't really belong and therefore can't be parallelled to anyone. Or maybe not. * * * _The_Prank/Choking_ I'm sure this as been discussed -at length- here (both aspects of it), but I wanted to know if anyone had any ideas or comments on the connection between these two events: first, the prank that Sirius played on Snape; second, Sirius' behavior at the end of PoA in the Shrieking Shack (ex: choking Harry). What to they say about Sirius? Ever since I read PoA, I've been confused about Sirius choking Harry. It stood out in my mind and I've never really been able to get rid of it. Arguably, Sirius wasn't really in his right mind at the time, because he had just come out of Azkaban; but I see too much of a connection with The Prank, prior to Sirius' imprisonment, for that to be the end of it. Maybe Sirius' tragic flaw is that he gets way too emotional about things and lets his emotion impair his judgement. I hope Sirius' destiny, though, isn't to always hurt the ones he loves through his tragic flaw (or simply because it's his fate). In trying to play a prank on Snape (although we don't really know what his motives were), Sirius hurt Remus, whether he was thinking about it or not. Not only could Remus have been seriously screwed, but Sirius was using Remus' weakness (a weakness that Remus no doubt struggles with all the time) for some petty joke; and I think, if I remember correctly, that the whole reason Sirius played the prank on Snape was because he was nosing around in their business, and their business is centered around Remus himself (does that make any sense at all? What I'm trying to say is that Sirius seems like he's trying to protect Remus, but the exact opposite happens). Then later, in Sirius' haste to get to Peter, he ends up choking Harry, the person whose parents' death he is supposedly avenging. (There are a lot of other examples of Sirius' "folly"; these are just the two I'm using.) Does anyone have any ideas about this? Am I just exhuming something that everyone's sick of talking about? Please tell me. :) --Doldra From Edblanning at aol.com Thu May 9 22:14:32 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 18:14:32 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry Message-ID: <3c.1e051bb3.2a0c4ec8@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38618 In a message dated 09/05/02 15:28:46 GMT Daylight Time, cindysphynx at comcast.net writes: > Oh, but there is another parallel. What Biblical figure was > beheaded? I think there was only one -- John the Baptist! So Harry > is the sacrifical lamb, and Ron is John the Baptist, who, er . . . > um, . . . > > > > Uh, a little help here? I need a Biblical parable where two figures > are killed while fighting on a swaying catwalk over a river of > molten lava. > Yeah. I was having problems there, which is why I didn't bring up John the Baptist. It did make me wonder briefly whether we should be looking at a John the Baptist parallel for Harry, rather than a Christ one, but I don't think the rest works. I mean, I can't see him wandering round the Forbidden Forest living on locusts and wild honey and dunking people in the lake. But to be serious, I don't really see Ron as a Baptist figure and the prediction is of Harry's decapitation, not Ron's. And of course if we *are* going to bring the Baptist into it, then who is Salome? Or Herodias? I know, I know....don't all shout at once.....Mrs Lestrange.....but I can't fit it together at all. OK. We seem to be rolling out ca(n)ons galore today. Want any more? In the First Task, Harry overcame a *dragon*, symbol of the Devil. In the Second Task, which is linked by Harry and Ron's predictions to the idea of drowning, he has to swim beneath the lake which could be interpreted as baptism.... I'm stuck on the Third Task. The same, of course is true for the other champions (and the friends below). I have always rather assumed that Fleur and Viktor will be Harry's allies. Now the Champions' wands. When Ollivander tests them, they all seem to emit something which reflects something about the owner. Fleur: flowers, befitting her name Viktor, the flyer: birds Cedric: smoke rings, reminiscent of the form he assumes after death And Harry's? Harry's wand, made of holly which symbolises death and resurrection and which contains a phoenix tail feather, another resurrection symbol, Harry's wand emits *wine*. I suggest we check the stability of the Big Bang and make sure all these ca(n)nons aren't pushing us too far down in the water. You know what happened to the over-armed Mary Rose, don't you? As soon as she changed course, water flooded in through the open gun-ports and she sank like a stone! And if Cindy really wants rivers of molten lava, she doesn't really have to look any further than Revelation. I guess we are pointing to an Apocalyptic ending, after all. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chetah27 at hotmail.com Thu May 9 21:24:39 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 21:24:39 -0000 Subject: "Dark Ages"?! In-Reply-To: <3CDABD10.3850FB05@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38619 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Margaret Dean wrote: > *cough cough* My dear Aldrea, one hundred years back doesn't > take one anywhere near the Dark Ages properly so called. Late > Victorian/early Edwardian period, more like, and already well > past quills and parchment. Unless you meant "some hundreds of > years," which is more accurate. Actually, "more than a thousand > years" would be needed to reach the true Dark Ages, if I'm not > mistaken: historically they begin with the fall of Rome, which > occurred in the fifth century A.D. > > > --Margaret Dean > Yes, I did infact mean some hundreds of years ago, not only a hundred years ago- I *do* know that the Dark Ages didn't take place in the 1900's. But I don't know the exact date of the Dark Ages, so I thank you for educating me on it as I have yet to study any of this in school(hopefully next year). I probably shouldn't have made the reference without thoroughly checking my dates, and I'll have to watch myself more carefully next time, I suppose. ~Aldrea From Ahketsi at aol.com Thu May 9 21:22:34 2002 From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com) Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 17:22:34 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: SHIP: Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione Message-ID: <102.14e94977.2a0c429a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38620 "I think Ron has the want to outdue his brothers(and Harry) so as to be recognized for himself, but I don't think he really has the drive to do so. Look at how he does in his classes, it's not like he's an attention-deprived, over-acheiver trying desperately to be noticed. I believe it's just his secret dream to become one of the greats, plus I don't think Ron has yet found his true calling. He seems to be a mix of some of his brother's traits- he has a good sense of humor and rebellion like the twins, but he also has the same sense of loyalty and responsibility(although this last one seems rather small alot of the time =P) as Percy." -Aldrea279 I think that is an excellent descripton of Ron! "I NEVER saw Ron as Pettigrew! Where does this come from? I always saw Neville as Pettigrew. Just Neville and Pettigrew's physical descriptions seem to match rather well. Then it talks about Pettigrew always being the tag-along to James and his group, and that is exactly what Neville has always seemed to be to the Trio." -Aldrea279 You know, I see Neville as Pettigrew in the obvious ways, but I really never considered him to be like Pettigrew because he seems like such a terribly sweet person to me. And he doesn't really "tag along" with Harry and friends very often, looking for their protection and approval. I think it is a very interesting development that his parents turned out to be famous aurors who suffered through torturing that left them insane. Neville doesn't hang out with Harry &etc. but he doesn't really hang out with Seamus and Dean too much either, so he's alone, isn't he? Maybe he'll become better friends with Harry & co. as the next book. I would love to see Neville do something really great in future books. "Actually, I don't like Harry and Hermione being a couple. Harry has never thought a single thought about Hermione that wasn't more than just friends! Infact, he's thought thoughts that were LESS than friendly. I honestly don't see Harry and Hermione hooking up, unless by some sudden change Harry goes "oh, I really do love Hermione!". I see Ron and Hermione, just because it seemed so plainly obvious that they liked each other in GoF. Hey, opposites attract." -Aldrea279 About Hermione, doesn't anyone want to see her with Krum? I personally find Krum's character attractive and I like that JKR ended up putting Hermione with someone besides Ron and Harry, though I must admit I would find it terribly exciting if anything happened between her and one them. "Ahketsi" From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Thu May 9 22:24:27 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 22:24:27 -0000 Subject: Which 'fan' will die? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38621 Lexan wrote: > I believe it will be Hagrid. No, I don't have any theories on why > Hagrid, except for the oddly fatalistic statements he said in GoF. > > Hagrid said those.It sent me chills up my spine. It may be rather > overreacting on my part, but there's almost like a foreshadow in > what he said. But hey, that's just me. > > I just don't believe that the fan will be Colin, Dennis, or Ginny. > The term "fan of Harry" makes me immediately one of the three of > them, and so do other people. I don't thinl JK will give such an > obvious clue to the plot. Amen! I completely agree. Plus, JKR has said that Harry will have to look at death in "even closer ways." That makes me think the person will be closer to him than Cedric was. I do agree that a Creevey's number will be up before the series ends, however. I mean, why *are* there two Creeveys anyway? Cannon fodder. I think it'll be Dennis that dies. Like others said, the surviving brother may go on a revenge kick. Circumstances may allow him to blame the death on Harry (at the very least, blame Harry for not saving the brother.) I think Colin, simply because we know more about him, is a better candidate for this kind of development. He already has a Harry complex; and Harry hasn't always been very nice to him either. Plus, it would allow a Gryffindor to go bad without necessitating Evil!Ron. Caroline From oppen at cnsinternet.com Fri May 10 02:51:50 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 21:51:50 -0500 Subject: Ron the Betrayer? (and thoughts about SHIPS) Message-ID: <011001c1f7cd$a3274260$aac71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 38622 I was quite interested in all the parallels from the Bible and alchemy that have been brought up here (apologies for not mentioning people by name, but I get the list in digest form) and while reading about whether Ron will or will not betray Harry, a thought hit me: Isn't Judas traditionally portrayed as a redhead? Gods, I hope he doesn't turn against Harry. This boy was his _first_ real friend, and it would just tear Harry's heart out if Ron went over to the side of Evil. On ships: Personally, I think it would work best if all _three_ of the Trio ended up with others. That way, the dynamics of their tight little group wouldn't be thrown out of whack. Of course, as Donna Barr says "Who ever said you get to _choose_ who you fall in love with?" But, right now, the Trio's relationship with each other reminds me of Modesty Blaise and her sidekick/aide/best-friend-in-all-the-worlds, Willie Garvin. Despite both of them having healthy, active sex lives, they've never shagged each other...because it would change their relationship forever, and they're already so close that it Wouldn't Feel Right. I could see Ron and Hermione _trying_ to date, or Harry and Hermione...and both of them deciding that it Didn't Feel Right---a little too much like dating one's sibling. Harry/Ginny also runs into the problem of dating one's best buddy's little sister---it would throw a serious spanner into Harry's and Ron's relationship, particularly if Ron turns into the Overprotective Big Brother (sort of a one-man Taliban, if you know what I mean) and finds that he's totally squicked by the thought of Ginny snogging (or shagging) _anybody at all,_ but ESPECIALLY Harry! So, although I'm just along for the ride, my own vote is for the Trio to date/sleep with/marry others, while keeping their own special bond. No Big Happy Weasley Family for me. From huntleyl at mssm.org Fri May 10 03:38:56 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 23:38:56 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry References: Message-ID: <006d01c1f7d4$37d025c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 38623 <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< Laura rolls up her pant legs and wades out into the tepid blue-green water of Theory Bay where Stoned!Harry is wandering listlessly near the shore. Cautiously, she extends a hand toward him and makes a "C'mere" gesture. The salt water slaps playfully against her knees while small silver fish dart around her ankles. Stoned!Harry blinks at her with glazed eyes and meanders over, tripping on the wavelets. <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< Cindy said: >Yes, it all adds up. Stoned!Harry is destined to die a death as a >sacrificial lamb to spare others from an awful fate. A death >by . . . uh . . . by decapitation. Shhh!! Don't say that in front of him! He's delicate. Look how pale his cheeks are. Anyway, you left out an important part of the equation if you're trying to draw parallels between Harry and Christ..Yes, Christ sacrificed his life in order to save the world...But that wasn't enough. He was then *resurrected* (rebirth...phoenix, anyone?). Without the resurrection, the cruxifiction is meaningless. So what does this mean in the context of JKR's story? Well...perhaps Harry will die -- or appear to be dead -- without taking Voldemort with him...and *then* he'll "rise again" and take V out when the Dark Lord least expects it. <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< Shipmate Laura takes Stoned!Harry's hand in her own and squeezes it reassuringly. "It's okay, you see?" She tells him. "You won't be *really* dead. It'll only hurt a little bit." Stoned!Harry smiles shyly and nods, his over-dilated pupils full of trust. <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< Errol asked: >.but..why would Voldemort try >to kill Harry again & again if he knew he was immortal, and thus >unkillable? If one argues that he didn't know about the living >stone part, then there would be no reason to go after Harry, would there? Dumbledore only created Harry for the *potential* of immortality. The same potential Tom Riddle was born with. However, the spells that UNLEASH that potential cannot be done until after birth...perhaps only Dumbledore knows them? Anyway, Volde wants to kill Harry because, in my variation of the theory, the prophecy that a Dark Lord with the potential of immortality will be defeated by a Light Lord with the same potential. Errol continues: >Even IF Dumbledore helped `create' Tom (*What* was he thinking of, >mixing with the Slytherin line anyway? And why leave Tom to grow up in a >muggle orphanage?), why would Tom merely have the *potential* for >immortality, while Harry has it inherent at birth? Remember, when Dumbledore created Tom, he was still very young and foolish and in love with his own power. He figured that by creating Tom he had done his fair share of preventing the "Dark Lord" from taking over, and he didn't have time to mess with some kid. Maybe the prophecy also specified that the Light Lord would be raise by Muggles? Anyway, it was creating Tom (and therefore, the Dark Lord in the prophecy) that was the BANG! that made Dumbledore go wise and good. Realizing that you may have doomed the world makes you responsible in a hurry. Also, under my variation on the theory, Dumbledore couldn't just choose two random people..they had to have something *special* in them (especially the mom) to make them compatible with the spells he preformed to make the baby Stoned. To your last question, either 1) they both had/have only the potential 2) perhaps Dumbledore perfected his method with Harry..or he preformed the final spell on Harry and not Tom...perhaps he didn't have the final spell formulated when Tom was made? hmm.. ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> Stoned!Harry is tapping Shipmate Laura's shoulder as she expounds on her ideas, gesticulating wildly. Finally, when she pauses for breath, he shoves something in front of her nose. It is a small golden ball with whirling wings. "Oh, clever boy, did you catch that all by yourself?" She exclaims. Stoned!Harry looks pleased. ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Fri May 10 03:32:19 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 23:32:19 EDT Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry Message-ID: <1e.27ec943a.2a0c9943@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38624 > "You see, the Kayak is way too small already. > "Can(n)ons!" shouts Dicentra, gesturing wildly. "What good is a > destroyer without can(n)ons? And we've got more of 'em than all those > other Bangy theories combined: > > Four: > > "And the tea leaves: a cross and possibly a lamb." > Debbie approaches the destroyer with one very small additional can(n)on and requests permission of the good captain(s) to borrow and perhaps re-forge the tea leaves into a larger can(n)on by noting that: Harry sees in the tea leaves not only a crooked cross, but also the sun, both a symbol of happiness and of resurrection (isn't that why all the old churches always faced East, into the promise of the rising sun?). There it is, his death and eternal life, neatly packed into one teacup. > Eloise: > Well, I guess we could have some kind of cataclysmic ending, where Harry > dies > not by a direct action of Ron's, but in a way somehow facilitated by Ron > and > which mercifully takes him out at the same time (we wouldn't want Ron to > survive, knowing he was the agent of Harry's death, would we?). [snips comparison of Evil! Ron and Judas, because I can't bear to think about the idea] > > > It was Ron's fake wand that decapitated Harry's. Perhaps it will > be his real > > wand that kills Harry. Perhaps Voldemort will use Ron's wand (as > his own, of > > course, won't work against Harry's) and in the act of killing > Harry kill > > himself (or render himself able to be killed) by dint of whatever > connection > > there is between them. > Trying to accept this . . . well, this scenario doesn't require a *betrayal* by Ron; Voldemort could exploit Ron by some other means to get the wand -- it would still be his fault and it would still require forgiveness, right? Cindy: > h. My. Goodness! This is so perfect. Eloise, we just have to > figure out how to have Harry and Ron die together -- at the same > instant, and we'll be right there. > > Wow! Having Ron's spiffy new wand -- the wand Ron received after > breaking his old wand on an adventure with Harry -- be the > instrument of Harry's demise would be so darn ironic. > Simple solution, completely can(n)on-based -- Ron's wand backfires in Voldemort's hands, bringing them all down together and taking Harry's head. That would be sufficiently Bangy. Just like Lockhart stole Ron's old wand and lost his memory when the wand backfired. The old Lockhart was dead; Harry went to hell and was raised up by Fawkes the resurrection symbol; Ron served time in Purgatory moving boulders, till Harry returned to take sinners Ron and Ginny up to new life. Lockhart matches up with Voldemort rather nicely, I think: the glamour of Evil! Now for the biblical can(n)on -- three persons crucified together, Christ with two sinners, one repentant and one not. Ron, repentant, joins Harry in the next great adventure (compare "today you will be with me in Paradise" to the promise of happiness for Ron in the tea leaves after his suffering); Voldemort loses his life and goes to hell. I guess this leaves Hermione as Mary Magdalene. > Eloise: > > > Ooh........ I think I'm groping towards something here. Is this > another of > > these clash of world view things? The desire for eternal > (physical) life vs. > > the desire for eternal (spiritual) life. Something in the ' He > that loveth > > his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world > shall keep > > it unto life eternal.' (John, 12; 25) vein? Is it Voldemort's > insatiable > > desire for physical life which will be his undoing, whilst Harry's > embracing > > of the 'next great adventure' which will be his salvation? > I should perhaps have snipped this, but I liked it too much. Cindy: > > BTW, this whole discussion of Harry's beheading has made me wonder > who, if anyone, we are *absolutely* confident will survive the > series. My list of Survivors is actually quite short. I'm thinking > that the minor teachers (Flitwick, Sprout) and McGonagall are safe. > No way will JKR kill McGonagall, I think. Everyone else probably > should watch their backs. > My view: Add Madam Pomfrey to the list (unless she's having a relationship with Dumbledore on the side; after all, she makes him blush, no, scratch Pomfrey), and subtract McGonagall. Her soft spot for Harry is a weakness that can be exploited. ><((">---- "))>< < Debbie, who hasn't had that much fun with the Bible in a long time [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From michelle_ravel at yahoo.ca Fri May 10 01:56:35 2002 From: michelle_ravel at yahoo.ca (michelle_ravel) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 01:56:35 -0000 Subject: Ron's Envy; (SHIP--sorta) love triangles; Sirius/Ron II In-Reply-To: <029f01c1f775$0c5c1480$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38625 Penny said: > :::waves at Michelle, haven't seen you lately since I haven't been >visiting the FictionAlley SCUSA boards:::: *waves enthusiastically back at Penny!!* I can't believe you even remember me... but I'm thrilled that you do! This is an AWESOME list you have here, and I've been lurking for a bit... Penny said: > I think you make a good case that Ron might be making some steps >toward coming to grips with his envy of Harry. But, I think it's >too soon to conclude that he's *fully resolved* his issues. I think >I'll wait & see how he reacts at the next big crisis point. I agree with that--he is perhaps headed in the right *direction* towards dealing with his envy issues, but he is not quite over them yet. I think all of those wonderful arguments from various people I just read about Ron dealing with his envy prove not that he has resolved his envy problem, but that his moving towards solving it. (He could, of course, be jolted back in the other direction! But as a Ron fan, I hope that he does not, and that he deals with with the " "next big crisis point" admirably. From the books, as we have seen from the various points brought forth by other members, he certainly has the potential and the desire to do so.) Penny said: >...I think I'll just trust that JKR will continue writing books that >I'll love & obsess over I think JKR has done such a great job >so far of balancing all the different plot points; I can't imagine >anything she might do that would "ruin" the series for me. Yeah, >I'm just going to leave it in her capable hands. Worked so far. Quite. Which is why I don't see her doing anything that I would find weak plot-wise--she hasn't, so far. A love triangle, as you pointed out, is a perfectly legit and strong literary device, and, as you say, she would write it well. At least, we would hope so. But I was commenting specifically on the theory that Queen of Slytherin put out there--that a love triangle between the trio, including Ron and Hermione actually officially getting together, breaking up, and then Harry and Hermione actually officially getting together, then Ron, in a fit of jealousy, turning over to the Dark Side specifically because of that. That, I found to be a *bit* much--all together in one Swell Foop. I would hope that both the romance, and any Light Side betrayal would be done in a... erm... sketchier manner, with multitudes of reasons and complications, and so forth. And it will, because I have confidence, like you do, in JKR's writing abilities. And as for raging hormones and miscommunications and other elements of teenaged romance? Oh, bring it on. I can't wait. It's not that I am afraid that she would ruin the book with "too much" romance. It is just that I *already* trust that she will NOT ruin the book, so that however much romance she puts in, it won't be too much. See what I mean? So, basically, we are in complete and utter agreement, and I know that because of this quote from brilliant, brilliant you: > I think I'll just trust that JKR will give us realistic adolescence >without turning the series into the wizarding world equivalent of >Dawson's Creek or a Harlequin romance. I feel utterly & completely >confident that she's capable of this. *nods* There you go, folks! *waves at Elizabeth* I like that Sirius/Ron theory!! And it's true-- Sirius did accidentally and indirectly, out of love for James and Lily, and insecurity with himself, cause Lily and James' death. And this would be the only plausible way I could ever see Ron causing harm to his friends, or helping out Voldemort's side. "michelle_ravel" From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com Fri May 10 04:05:03 2002 From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (ltg3asu) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 04:05:03 -0000 Subject: A (very) Little On Yew Trees (TBAY: Stoned!Harry) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38626 southernscotland at yahoo.com writes: Ok, I thought at first I might have been mistaken, but no. Here it is, straight from the Lexicon: (http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/wands.html) "Voldemort: yew, 13 1/2", single phoenix feather (also from Fawkes)" That's from a listing of the wands and their properties who we know about thus far. Voldemort's wand is made of yew, maybe even one that was in the cemetary...? Yew is a sign of immortality, yes, but more importantly, of death. However, Harry's wand, ("Harry Potter: holly, 11", supple, single phoenix feather(from Fawkes)") is made of Holly, another tree associated with immortality, but on a different level. Holly is an evergreen, and therefore considered symbolic of ressurection (one of the reasons it is popular at Christmas, but also from older roots in the Yule celebration). So there is HOPE! Maybe Harry's sacrifice by way of the Stoned!Harry theories won't end him up dead.... forever.... I know, magic doesn't bring people back, but this is much older magic (if magic at all) and that seems to not be held down by the same restrictions. Not trying to disprove or disuade Stoned!Harry (because I like it very much!), but.... with fingers crossed for A Stoned!(but Alive!)Harry, L. Terrell Gould, III PS Does anyone else find it curious that most of the parallels found on this site between HP and religion involve the iconography of Christianity? Is it because it is widely known? Are most of us Christian? Are we just seeing it through the dominant socially enculterated schema in western society? Pardon me. I've been studying way too much for my psych and anthro exams. I'll leave now *poof*. From catlady at wicca.net Fri May 10 07:25:11 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 07:25:11 -0000 Subject: Idea AND re: shippiness/Krum - Yew - HP as Christian Allegory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38627 Dumbledore has white hair and beard in the 'now', and he had auburn hair and beard at age 100 in the CoS flashback. Karkaroff has white beard in GoF but it was black in the Pensieve flashback. Could it be that wizards' hair gets white not from age, but as a sign of being Headmaster of a school? Barb wrote: > I'm surprised that [Hermione] didn't throw back in [Ron's] face > that he also asked a champion to the ball. They all agreed that he had not asked Fleur of his will, but because he was compelled by her veela magic that sideswiped him while aimed at Roger Davies. Akhetsi wrote: > About Hermione, doesn't anyone want to see her with Krum? I'd like to, but I don't think JKR will make it happen. (In fact, now that Krum has been found to be a good guy, I expect JKR to kill him in the next book.) I think that Krum's attraction to Hermione shows that he has good taste beyond his years. I think that Krum has quite enough glory of his own that he won't mind sitting back admiringly while Hermione shows off her intelligence and political activism; Ron would get competitive with her and Harry would find it wearisome. Lila HP wrote: > The yew tree. It is said to be an ancient symbol of immortality. The yew tree is a symbol of death. Because: 1) Its berries are poisonous. 2) The English longbow was so great because it was made of yew wood which is a natural composite. 3) It is traditionally planted in churchyards on purpose to consume the buried corpses as tree fertilizer. That last point is probably the most relevant to there being a yew tree in the churchyard scene of GoF: it could be realism rather than symbolism. Oh, Eloise already said that. Eloise wrote: > Just as the Christian myth isn't complete without the Resurrection, > surely the Harry Potter myth isn't complete without Harry's death > (if that is what it indeed entails) bringing about some re-ordering > of the WW, releasing it from the prejudice and injustice on which > we have commented time and time again. I speculate: the most active and heroic participants in the destruction of Voldemort were our Trio: Harry, Ron, and Hermione. Harry and Ron both having died in the struggle, Hermione is the main surviving hero, so she is chosen by acclamation to be the new Minister of Magic, and she sets energetically to setting the wizarding wizard to rights. Hopefully with some Weasleys or TAGWATCH to advise her when her acronyms are bad and should be replaced. L. Terrell Gould III wrote: > Does anyone else find it curious that most of the parallels found > on this site between HP and religion involve the iconography of > Christianity? In addition to the fact that a tremendous amount of literature written in English involves Christianity, and JKR was influenced by literature, there also is an interview out there somewhere in which she states that she is a member of the Church of Scotland and admits that her Christian beliefs have influenced her writing. Cindy Sphinx wrote: > who, if anyone, we are *absolutely* confident will survive the > series. Hermione. For JKR to kill Hermione would be suicide. I can't say "absolutely" about Hermione's parents, but I *think* they will survive as well. From adatole at yahoo.com Fri May 10 09:13:46 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 02:13:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] How old is Neville? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020510091346.28658.qmail@web20509.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38628 Do we have any canon information on how old Neville really is? I'm starting to wonder, and all my books are packed and sailing across the Atlantic. Why do I wonder? ------------------ " I'd expect my gran'd want to try, though, she's is always going on about how I should be upholding the family honour. I'll just have to - oops" as he gets his foot stuck in the stairs. ------------------ But what I can't recall is when Dumbledore announces the age limit. While some folks (F&G, even Harry) are disappointed, I can't imagine Neville entertaining the notion of participating (or of Gran wanting him to participate) after the age restriction has been posted. *IF* everyone knows how old you have to be, then this would be evidence that Neville is older than the rest of his year - possibly because he was held back for various reasons. And then that would support a much older Neville during the time of his parents' torture, and validate many of the memory charm theories floating around - a 26 month old might not remember, but a child 2 or 3 years older definitely would! Just a thought. I'm probably way off. LA __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! http://shopping.yahoo.com From katgirl at lava.net Fri May 10 09:14:06 2002 From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:14:06 -0000 Subject: SomeTBAY: Stoned Harry / Some SHIP: Love Triangle Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38629 Laura, on Stoned Harry: >>Oooo...what if Dumbledore created TOM RIDDLE with the potential for immortality because of the prediction about a Dark Lord Trelawney or whomever made(thinking that *Tom* would be the Light Lord), and then was forced to create Harry to fulfill the prophecy and undo the damage he had caused.<< Oooh! Voldemort *never fully died!* Because he didn't give up his immortality! But, even immortality has it's limits, so maybe it couldn't keep him alive afterwards? Maybe he can only brush against death so many times, and he more or less "used up" all his "chances." Or maybe Tom's immortality was flawed? And Harry's is superior? As for Dumbledore, have any of you ever read The Andalite Chronicles (Part of the Animorphs series)? I guess this is the same concept- people who create monsters, Abominations, Dark Lords-sometimes place upon themselves the burden of undoing the damage, for the rest of their lives. Hmm. Penny on Evil!Ron and a love triangle: >>It'd be great actually if Ron & Hermione did date for a time & realize how completely & utterly wrong they are for each other (the "greatest literary mismatch of all time" as Jim F put it recently) & break up amicably. I do think Hermione has her heart set on Harry rather than Ron, and I think a love triangle presents all sorts of interesting plot points. Ron's not my favorite character by any means, and I think he's absolutely, positively all wrong for Hermione. But, he's not just an inconvenience. He is their best friend after all. :--)<< In fact, he could be their best man! ::throws the Marauder Parallell Rubber Duckie into TBAY:: Okay, I have to first admit to being a R/H shipper. So I'm biased on this topic. And will be looking for any signs of Sirius's romantic interest in OotP. ::g:: But here, I'll try to provide analysis of this from the Duckie. I have noted that Hermione is possibly Lily, yes, but since I'm R/H, I bumped this possibility down a few notches. A love triangle has interesting possibilities, but I'm not a great fan of them. So I guess I am secretly hoping for R/H to split up for the better, and H/H to form, if I MUST accept H/H. (And I won't, not fully, until it's been confirmed Sirius has no love interest. And no, I am not going to leave the Duckie.) I think, if anything, Ron being present in an H/H relationship will only enhance it. He wouldn't be against it, (unless it was a full scale love triangle, of course, and those always make me squirm) his two best friends falling in love. (He might even arrange it, provided he and Hermione never go out....) From a literary point of view, he would help draw the line between Hermione's relationship with her friends, and Hermione's relationship with Harry. He would feel a bit uncomfortable at times, (I would, if my two best friends were going out) but Harry and Hermione can recognize that and all in all, everyone would remain friends. I hope. -Katherine From joyw at gwu.edu Fri May 10 10:26:39 2002 From: joyw at gwu.edu (- Joy -) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 06:26:39 -0400 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry Message-ID: <009501c1f80d$2c5f7040$53263244@nrockv01.md.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38630 Cindy wrote: <> Wow, I'm really starting to buy into this theory. Usually they're a little too far afield of canon for my taste, but this one seems to have some really solid support. I just have to add one more canon support that I found on my last reread of GoF, which was perfectly timed to coincide with the emergence of this theory. Okay, I admit it, I was reading it last night... This is from the American hardback of GoF, pg. 311: "Mr. Ollivander spent much longer examining Harry's wand than anyone else's. Eventually, however, he made a fountain of wine shoot out of it, and handed it back to Harry, announcing that it was still in perfect condition." A fountain of wine?! Like water into wine? I wasn't raised on the New Testament, and the symbolism there is just screaming to me, begging to be recognized. ~Joy~ From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri May 10 12:09:31 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 08:09:31 -0400 Subject: Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6) Message-ID: <1C35B89D.7AB685FA.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38632 Amy quoted Phil Nel: "Think about the individual's relationship to the law - Hogwart's rules, national wizarding laws, international wizarding laws - and then think about those who operate outside of these laws. Focus in particular on the characters of... Arthur Weasley [who among others] either bend the rules or break the law. Which rules or laws do they break? Does Rowling see their behavior as justified? Why or why not? How does she gauge whether a law or a rule is just or unjust? When are laws or rules susceptible to challenge?" I think the case of Arthur Weasley is interesting because he does break rules, while at the same time being in a position where it is his job to enforce them. Indeed he gets into trouble precisely over this issue. Furthermore, he is presented as a 'good' character - not necessarily a role model (I wonder, are *any* of the HP characters intended to be something which the reader should aspire to emulate? I think not myself.) but not somebody who is supposed to be a bad example either. One might argue that rule-breaking should fall into two categories: justified rule-breaking, when a rule is being broken in obedience to a higher law or moral imperative (Dumbledore protects Sirius), and unjustified rule breaking, where a rule is being broken for selfish ends (Bagman tries to fix the contest). There may be a grey area in between, where, say, somebody breaks a rule with consequences that are both generally beneficial and in the short term interest of the rule breaker, or breaking the rule is a short cut to a good end that could be achieved legally, if circuitously (some of Harry's investigations in COS plausibly fall into this category). Arthur is interesting because his rule-breaking is hard to classify in this scheme, even allowing for the grey areas. He charms the Ford Anglia (though he claims that is technically not illegal), he wangles perks like the World Cup tickets (it is implied that he abetted a minor miscarriage of justice over Otto Bagman's lawnmower) and the Floo connection to the Dursleys, and he gets Moody (as he believes) out of trouble with wider Ministry connivance. Some of this looks like corruption: if people are in the inner circle, they can act above minor laws. It is not clear whether he considers whether he is breaking the spirit of the law in his misdemeanours. The difficulty with arguing that helping Moody is 'justified rule-breaking' is that it only appears justified because the reader and Arthur assume that Moody is a good guy who deserves a break, and special consideration in view of his past service. Helping out Otto Bagman seems more like the unjustified kind, but what is the difference? And Arthur derives a material benefit which while not predictable in detail may well be expected to accrue generally when helping others out in this way. I think the way I see it is that Arthur just is the person that he is: JKR accepts him on this basis, and we are to like him, and be aware that what he does might be wrong, but we don't need to make a judgement. Amy further asked: >(4) Critics of HP often cite Harry's rulebreaking, Dumbledore's winking at it, etc., as a reason the books are unsuitable for children. Be honest, now: do you think the books send less-than-desirable messages about rules? About the rule of law? How *should* books deal with the phenomenon of rulebreaking, if at all? I will address this in the context of what I have said above. I think it is possible that for the type of rule-breaking that Arthur Weasley engages in, there is *no* clear message. Is it possible that JKR is experimenting with that type of person, and is not sure herself whether their rule-breaking is ultimately justifiable or not. She can control the consequences of his behaviour to make it go one way or the other, but, not knowing herself, she may just choose to leave it ambiguous. None of us know the answer: why should she, and why should she make one up? In other words, not only do we not need to make a judgement now, after four books, about AW's rightness or wrongness, but perhaps JKR's real message here is that we don't need ever make a judgement, and that she won't either. As far as suitability for children is concerned, I don't believe that, if, for example, Voldemort gets off scot free at the end, a million children will decide to begin the quest for illicit immortality. They will just yell "unfair" while their parents try to look knowing and say they thought it was a post-modernist series all along. I seriously doubt that stories in which evil is unpunished will corrupt a generation: more likely they just won't sell, or they will be treated as a counter-example to avoid, like '1984'. I would say it is a feature of our society to feel very insecure when a fictional character is morally ambiguous, and that ambiguity is not resolved. We want all our characters to be wearing black or white hats on the last page, however shadowed they were up until then. Sometimes the answer "I don't know" is not only truthful, it's liberating. 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 Joanne0012 at aol.com Fri May 10 12:30:45 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 12:30:45 -0000 Subject: How old is Neville? In-Reply-To: <20020510091346.28658.qmail@web20509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38633 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Leon Adato wrote: > Do we have any canon information on how old Neville really is? I'm > starting to wonder, and all my books are packed and sailing across the > Atlantic. > > Why do I wonder? > > ------------------ > " I'd expect my gran'd want to try, though, she's is always going > on about how I should be upholding the family honour. I'll just > have to - oops" as he gets his foot stuck in the stairs. > ------------------ > > But what I can't recall is when Dumbledore announces the age limit. He announced the age limit about two pages before the Neville quote you gave above. But Neville is speaking in a context of the boys speculating about whether to enter, regardless of the age limit -- in the text just before the quote you gave, Fred has just said, "Hey, Ron, what if we find out how to get 'round Dumbledore? Fancy entering?" "What d'you reckon?" Ron asked Harry. "Be cool to enter, wouldn't it? But I s'pose they might want someone older.... Dunno if we've learned enough.. ." "I definitely haven't," came Neville's gloomy voice from behind Fred and George. . . . So I think Neville is speaking in the context of what if they found a way around the age constraint. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri May 10 12:35:15 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 12:35:15 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry In-Reply-To: <006d01c1f7d4$37d025c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38634 Wow! Stoned Harry really *is* immortal, as I'm starting to wonder if this thread will live forever. ;-) OK, I'll do my part to prolong things. I'm really scraping the bottom of the Bay here, so don't expect much. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~<"))>< ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Laura wrote: > Anyway, you left out an important part of the equation if you're >trying to draw parallels between Harry and Christ..Yes, Christ >sacrificed his life in order to save the world...But that wasn't >enough. He was then *resurrected* (rebirth...phoenix, anyone?). >Without the resurrection, the cruxifiction is meaningless. > > So what does this mean in the context of JKR's story? >Well...perhaps Harry will die -- or appear to be dead -- without >taking Voldemort with him...and *then* he'll "rise again" and take >V out when the Dark Lord least expects it. Yes, I have been a bit lax on the resurrection part of the equation, that's true. Well, we've seen two ways in which dead people come back. Not all the way back, but back enough to have dialogue. There are ghosts, and there are smoky shadows. (There might also be the Time Turner angle, but that's *way* too complicated, and JKR wouldn't *dare* dust off the Time Turner plot twist in the climactic scene in Book 7, for cryin' out loud.) Now, ghosts aren't my specialty, so forgive me if I mess this up. I get the sense, however, that ghosts and poltergeists can act on their surroundings. Throwing water balloons and such. Stealing the egg of a champion (no, Peeves didn't do this, but Filch thought he could). Shadows, on the other hand, appear not to be able to do much, although they did befuddle Voldemort for a minute, although that is probably not difficult to accomplish. I personally think the shadows in the graveyard might have put a shield charm around Harry as he fled, but I think I'm alone in that unsupported hunch. But the shadow idea would require Harry to come slithering out of someone's wand, and I don't see that happening. So . . . once Harry is beheaded over a river of molten lava, he could return as a ghost and push Voldemort down into the river, too. Theoretically, that is. Debbie wrote: >Trying to accept this . . . well, this scenario doesn't require a >*betrayal* >by Ron; Voldemort could exploit Ron by some other means to get the >wand -- it >would still be his fault and it would still require forgiveness, >right? Could Voldemort exploit Ron by some means to get his wand? Heck, yeah! Remember Ron's little problems shrugging off the Imperius Curse? Maybe JKR is trying to tell us something there. Perhaps Ron's destiny is to be controlled by Voldemort until the crucial moment on the catwalk. Harry might have Voldemort in a bad position, having disarmed him or whatever, and will be struggling with the difficult moral question of whether to behead the Most Evil Dark Wizard Who Ever Lived. Ron would choose that moment of hesitation to lunge at Harry, causing them both to fall to their deaths. Voldemort will rise to his feet and cackle maniacally for longer than is reasonable, only to have the Ghost of Stoned Harry . . . um . . . behead him. Hey, it could happen! Cindy (who thinks Stoned!Harry should remove the dark glasses, because they aren't fooling anyone) From Edblanning at aol.com Fri May 10 13:18:02 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 09:18:02 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry & Who Will Definitely Survive? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38635 Cindy quotes me: > Eloise: > > > And surely Harry can't just die, however heroically. Even dying to > rid the WW > > of Voldemort is anti-climactic in a sense, isn't it? I mean, it's > heroic, and > > supremely good and all that, but in a way it's negative, it's a > ridding of > > And then goes on: > > I don't think I fully understand the idea that a sacrifice has to > result in something good beyond the immediate benefit of the > sacrifice. I mean, Lily sacrificed herself for Harry and rid the > world of evil by reducing Voldemort to a noxious fume, and I don't > think there was any positive good that filled the void. Maybe we > can think of it as a straight downsizing? ;-) > Laura counters with (actually, I think it may have been to an earlier post, but it's relevant here): >Anyway, you left out an important part of the equation if you're trying to draw >parallels between Harry and Christ..Yes, Christ sacrificed his life in order to save >the world...But that wasn't enough. He was then *resurrected* (rebirth...phoenix, >anyone?). Without the resurrection, the cruxifiction is meaningless. Eloise: Exactly my point. And we have all these resurrection symbols, don't we. What else are we going to do with them? Well, perhaps it wasn't exactly my point, but it was behind it. I was just trying to, well, express it in a slightly more secular manner, I suppose. But at the same time, the Resurrection is the crux (excuse the pun) of the Christian story. However orthodox or liberal your interpretation of what actually did or didn't happen, it was the event that turned around a group of dispirited, dissillusioned disciples of an apparently dead and discredited leader into a force that eventually influenced much of the course of Western history. Laura: >So what does this mean in the context of JKR's story? Well...perhaps Harry will >die -- or appear to be dead -- without taking Voldemort with him...and *then* he'll >"rise again" and take V out when the Dark Lord least expects it. Eloise: Now that sounds like a likely plot line. No doubt Voldemort will forget something crucial in the process, as usual. Debbie rolls out yet another ca(n)non: >Harry sees in the tea leaves not only a crooked cross, but also the sun, both >a symbol of happiness and of resurrection (isn't that why all the old >churches always faced East, into the promise of the rising sun?). There it >is, his death and eternal life, neatly packed into one teacup. Eloise: Oh, yes, you're right. As a matter of interest, some of the very earliest churches used to face West, so that the celebrant faced East (S. Peter's Basilica in Rome, for one). Eastward facing was a later development. And its why Christian burials are East-West, so that at the resurrection, the first thing the believer will see is the dawn of the Saviour rising. It's also a feature of some other Eastern mystery cults, such as Mithraism, which had some very similar imagery to Christianity (Mithraeae are architecturally indistinguishable from basilican churches). And the Emperor Constantine, whose Edict of Milan in 303 and programme of church building first spread 'official' Christianity throughout the Roman empire was a devotee of the cult of Sol Invictus, (the unconquered sun) and seems perhaps to have regarded Christianity as a variant of this. Debbie: >Simple solution [to the problem of how H, R and V die simultaneously], completely >can(n)on-based -- Ron's wand backfires in >Voldemort's hands, bringing them all down together and taking Harry's head. >That would be sufficiently Bangy. Just like Lockhart stole Ron's old wand >and lost his memory when the wand backfired. The old Lockhart was dead; >Harry went to hell and was raised up by Fawkes the resurrection symbol; Ron >served time in Purgatory moving boulders, till Harry returned to take sinners >Ron and Ginny up to new life. Eloise: We were listening to this again yesterday and I was struck by the imagery of Harry rescuing Ginny from the Chamber. The raising of Lazarus was what came to my mind, as well as the Harrowing of Hell. Debbie: >Now for the biblical can(n)on -- three persons crucified together, Christ >with two sinners, one repentant and one not. Ron, repentant, joins Harry in >the next great adventure (compare "today you will be with me in Paradise" to >the promise of happiness for Ron in the tea leaves after his suffering); >Voldemort loses his life and goes to hell. Eloise: Of course, a true parallel to Christ's crucifixion would require that Harry dies at the hands of the judiciary, or the establishment in some form or another . We already have accusations from the MoM that Harry is dangerous, that his scar (depending on reading) is a warning. (FIE!) In another thread, I was ruminating on the fact that we haven't actually seen a death penalty as such in the WW. Could it exist? Could it, just possibly, be manifsted in the form of beheading? L. Terrell Gould, III >Yew is a sign of immortality, yes, but more importantly, of death. >However, Harry's wand, ("Harry Potter: holly, 11", supple, single >phoenix feather(from Fawkes)") is made of Holly, another tree >associated with immortality, but on a different level. Holly is an >evergreen, and therefore considered symbolic of ressurection >(one of the reasons it is popular at Christmas, but also from older >roots in the Yule celebration). Eloise: Now, funnily enough I was going to ask if there was anyone out there who had an opinion on this. Obviously, I appreciate the significance of Voldemort having a wand made of yew .It's just the yew trees in the churchyard that I can't find significant per se. You'd have to look hard to find one without yew trees. (Oh and I've just read Catlady de los Angeles post, we seem to agree on that point! And thanks for the other bits about yew) What is so interesting is that both Harry and Voldemort seem to have wands for which the symbolism is almost identical. Now, just for anyone else who isn't sure about this, yew *is* evergreen. As I understand it, the original symbolisms of holly and yew were similar, but yew, because of its association with graveyards later took on more strongly overtones of death, and lost (popularly) its association with resurrection. This is paralleled of course by societal attitudes. In the days of the early church, people would gather to celebrate at burial sites; they had positive connotations (in fact churches such as S. Peter's, Rome actually started out as cemetery churches, built to accomodate families of the deceased, or in its case, pilgrims). Later, as the mediaeval mind began to be filled with ideas of magic and demons and evil spirits, etc., churchyards became spooky and associated more strongly with fear of death. We have discussed before that symbols act at different levels. Do we assume that the symbolism of the yew of Voldemort's wand is operating at a level where the symbolism of death is uppermost (not least in what it deals out to others)? L Terrell Gould III again: >PS >Does anyone else find it curious that most of the parallels found on >this site between HP and religion involve the iconography of >Christianity? Is it because it is widely known? Are most of us >Christian? Are we just seeing it through the dominant socially >enculterated schema in western society? >Pardon me. I've been studying way too much for my psych and anthro >exams. I'll leave now *poof*. Eloise: I think we're seeing it because a) it's there and b) once you start reading a specific interpretation into something you'll keep on finding it, whether it's there or not. (Hmm...yew trees.....) Yes, for most of us the dominant culture is Christian and so whether Christian or not, the iconography is familiar to a great many people (at least, it is in the US, less so over here) and is likely to be used to interpret what may be more universal themes. It is certainly the culture from which JKR comes and our last foray into this territory was apropos a suggestion that JKR was actually more religious than she'd really like people to know (along the lines of 'if people knew, they'd be able to predict what's going to happen'). Oh, Catlady said that too! Great minds! Eloise Feeling slightly guilty and sort of hoping that we're not really predicting how the series will end. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jamminjerry at madnessmansion.com Fri May 10 09:29:51 2002 From: jamminjerry at madnessmansion.com (Jarrod Jicha) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 05:29:51 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020510051829.009e8ba0@mail.madnessmansion.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38636 OK, here are my thoughts on these questions. First, Susanne asked if people dislike Ron because they think he will betray Harry's trust and join Voldemort. Penny countered that: > >[There] is a *possibility* that Ron *could* betray Harry > >*unintentionally.* I don't think that Ron in the end would betray Harry. Sure, I think he may slip up from time to time, but have you noticed when the chips are down, he is right there, and does what is right? Someone else remarked: >"I do think Ron's flaws make him at least >slightly more susceptible to manipulation by the Dark side." I tend to >agree with this, but I still think that in the end, when it is do, or die >time, Ron will be right bye Harries side. Susanne also asked if people think Ron will go bad because he's a present-day equivalent of Peter Pettigrew, and therefore _has_ to go bad. I really don't agree with this, because Peter Pettigrew was intentually bad. He only does things when they best suit him. I mean come on.! He killed a lot of muggles just trying to get away from Sirius. Now, he is with Lord Voldemort. Maybe he isn't all that bad, but I think he is. As far as Ron is concerned, I like this theory, "Actually, wouldn't the most accurate parallel for Ron, as a potential bad guy, be Sirius? Ron may do something wrong, but usually he is a good kid just screwing around, I don't think he would intentionally hurt someone, well maybe Malfoy, but that is something totally different. Jarrod From buffyeton at yahoo.com Fri May 10 12:44:12 2002 From: buffyeton at yahoo.com (EtonBuffy) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 12:44:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as Potter's Secret Keeper Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38637 It was mentioned in "Prisoner of Azkaban" that Dumbledore offered to be the Potter's secret-keeper. Why in the world wouldn't they take him up on this offer knowing that he was the only wizard whom Voldemort is afraid of? You'd think he would be an obvious choice. Tamara From melodylemming at hotmail.com Fri May 10 14:09:12 2002 From: melodylemming at hotmail.com (Melody B.) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 10:09:12 -0400 Subject: Rulebreaking (Sirius and Remus) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38638 >Catlady wrote: >Remus *could* have an entirely selfish reason for disapproval: what >does MoM do to a werewolf who bites a wizard? At the very least, >having to leave Hogwarts. Possibly imprisonment or execution. Does that count as selfish? I wouldn't call anyone selfish who was hoping they wouldn't kill somebody. I think it's Sirius who's being selfish here, using Remus to hurt Snape, but not thinking about the possible consequences for Remus. >Also, as a fairly mature and thoughtful person, or as a person who >cares about Sirius, he probably thought that Sirius was being a >complete idiot to take so much risk to his Sirius-self (does murder >by use of a werewolf rate a life sentence in Azkaban?) for so >little >purpose. I disagree. Remus is in much more danger than Sirius here. And Doldra replied: >I agree, but personally, if I were Remus, I'd disapprove of (and be >really bitter about) Sirius' prank because he used -me- to do it. I >think that the werewolf issue was (and still is?) probably a pretty >sensitive topic with Remus when he was a teenager, especially since >it alienated him so much. After all, he had to be led to an abandoned >cabin once a month so that he wouldn't kill anyone. The fact that >Sirius, one of Remus' best friends, used him and his weakness to >amuse himself (by himself I mean Sirius) must have been really >difficult to deal with at that age. It probably still gets to him. Yeah, this is probably still a really touchy subject for Remus. Sirius really did the wrong thing here. He risked having Snape's turning into a werewolf or being murdered over some schoolboy rivalry, and what's more, he used on of his best friends to do it, not thinking of the position it might put Remus in. Melody _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri May 10 15:01:59 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 15:01:59 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Hermione and Ron (was Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione) In-Reply-To: <016d01c1f6c6$e05b6c90$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38639 Penny wrote: >It'd be great actually if Ron & Hermione did date for a time & realize how completely & utterly wrong they are for each other (the "greatest literary mismatch of all time" as Jim F put it recently) & break up amicably. and: >Ron's not my favorite character by any means, and I think he's absolutely, positively all wrong for Hermione. This is something that has bugged me for some time. At one (OT) level, it's just that I'm deeply suspicious of all attempts to matchmake by third parties, and consider, almost in principle, that one can't know whether two people are suited for one another. To put a canon gloss on it, if it is our choices rather than our endowments that matter, the issue is not whether they are suited but whether, if together, they would make the choices that would make a relationship work out. And by definition that is unpredictable. But, on a more HPFGU sort of level, am I right in understanding that the basis for this assessment is their continued bickering? The way I see the bickering is as follows: Ron and Hermione already have a very deep relationship through shared experiences (and, as Tabouli pointed out months ago, because their lives revolve around Harry). (As yet another parenthesis, am I missing something in the American usage of the term 'dating'? To my British ears it connotes two people who don't know each other very well, consciously trying out a closer, but still not very close, relationship. So there might be sex but very limited understanding. As I explain below, if H&R were to become romantically involved I think they would completely leapfrog this step.) At the same time, they have very different perceptions of what is important in life, and of the right way to act. I believe their bickering stems from their unwillingness to acknowledge the value of this difference; instead, they are engaged in a continual power struggle over their two world-views. This is expressed in arguments about, for example, how homework should be tackled. *However*, the fact that they engage in this power struggle is one of the main indicators to me that there is more to their relationship. Why doesn't Hermione just give up on Ron's attitude to homework? Why doesn't Ron accept Hermione's attachment to the library? Each of them wants to be responsible for the other in a way that, IMO, is uncharacteristic of friendship that is happy with the state it's at. So, before R&H would ever *start* dating, they would have to face these issues. They would have to accept that the other is different and has something valuable to say. That they can learn from each other. Once they had done that, they would discover the strong foundations of mutual love and respect that have already developed through trolls, petrification, cat-rat forgiveness, and potions- lesson embarrassments. I think that it is precisely these lessons that Ron, at least, post- ball, is starting to learn. He is painfully coming to terms with the fact that he has to give Hermione space to be herself, to the extent of losing her to Krum. Hermione has perhaps yet to learn that it is mistaken to try to reform Ron - as long as she does try, they *are* going nowhere; but it is mistaken, and something she needs to learn, whether they date or no. So, as I understand it, if they were to 'date', they would have already tackled, if not actually removed, the cause of the bickering. And it is hard for me, at least, to see how in that scenario they would still be unsuited. But then, as I said at the beginning, it is hard for me to see (from the outside: sexual attraction is another issue entirely, IMO inexplicable to third parties) how any two people are unsuited once they have resolved to address the issues that cause antipathy between them. David From adatole at yahoo.com Fri May 10 15:26:35 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 08:26:35 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore as Potter's Secret Keeper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020510152635.18353.qmail@web20501.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38640 --- EtonBuffy wrote: > It was mentioned in "Prisoner of Azkaban" that Dumbledore offered to > be the Potter's secret-keeper. Why in the world wouldn't they take > him up on this offer knowing that he was the only wizard whom > Voldemort is afraid of? You'd think he would be an obvious choice. Because despite the fact that Dumbledore is probably stronger than any other wizard, he is not stronger than EVERY other wizard. Gang up enough DE's against him and he'd go down like anyone else. Being secret-keeper would paralyze him so that he couldn't do anything else. He'd have to be busy keeping himself (and therefore the Potters) safe. The fact is that the Potters were important. Desperately important. So important that they needed to use the Fidelius charm. This doesn't sound like your run of the mill spell or something that others were doing as a normal precaution. This was "in extremis". This was unique. We don't yet know why (although theories abound around here, don't they!) but the fact is that it was desperately important that the Potters live, but equally important that someone continue to work against Voldemort. By becoming the secret-keeper, Dumbledore could not have continued to openly work against V. IMHO. LA __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Shopping - Mother's Day is May 12th! http://shopping.yahoo.com From gideoner4 at yahoo.com Fri May 10 15:32:48 2002 From: gideoner4 at yahoo.com (queen_of_slytherin) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 15:32:48 -0000 Subject: SHIP: R/Hr OR H/H, but definitely not R/Hr THEN H/Hr or H/Hr THEN R/Hr! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38641 Messages Messages Help Reply | Forward | View Source | Unwrap Lines | Delete Message 38631 of 38640 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index Msg # From: "queen_of_slytherin" Date: Fri May 10, 2002 11:54 am Subject: Re: Some SHIP: Love Triangle ADVERTISEMENT > Penny on Evil!Ron and a love triangle: > >>It'd be great actually if Ron & Hermione did date for a time & realize how > completely & utterly wrong they are for each other (the "greatest literary > mismatch of all time" as Jim F put it recently) & break up amicably. I do think > Hermione has her heart set on Harry rather than Ron, and I think a love triangle presents all sorts of interesting plot points. Ron's not my favorite character by any means, and I think he's absolutely, positively all wrong for > Hermione. But, he's not just an inconvenience. He is their best friend after all. :--)<< > Oh I digress. A love triangle may be a bit interesting, but it is not exactly the best plot out there. It is overused and so much like Dawson's Creek. And as I said in a previous post, it is tacky, mediocre, melodramatic, and soap-operatic. I am a Ron/Hermione shipper, but I can accept Harry/Hermione in canon, as long as Hermione dates just Harry. Same goes for Ron/Hermione for me. If R/Hr happens, I'd rather have Hermione date Ron but not Harry ever. In my opinion, making Ron and Hermione date a while then break up even in good terms, then make Hermione and Harry date and get together is just one of cringe-worthy plots out there. C'mon, in real life, it's awkward enough to date one of your best friends, then break up with that friend, then go on and date your other best friend, who happens to be also one of the best friends of your ex. *winces* Melrose Place, anyone? or Dawson's Creek? *winces even more* I have nothing aginst those shows, but they are not in HP's level, so I'd rather not let HP go down in its level. So, as some people see it, Ron and Hermione can break up in good terms. That makes it guilt-free for Hermione be with Harry, because all three of their friendships with each other will still remain intact (oh how convenient!). Right? Not so. Because even though it's perfectly fine with Ron, as a normal person, he will inevitably think of this whenever he sees Hermione and Harry together: 1.) Do they do the same things as we did? 2.) Why does it work for her and him but not for her and me? 3.) Do they sometimes talk about me and my faults, and why our relationship didn't work? The same goes for Ron/Hermione. If Harry and Hermione break up then she hooks up with Ron, Harry will be thinking the same things even if the break-up is in good terms. It's inevitable for people to think of that, even for just a short while sometimes. Because it is human nature to wonder where and why we have gone wrong with the things we did. And I personally am not comfortable with best friends (Ron and Harry) who dated the same girl. I won't think of Hermione that way, but if she dates both, I couldn't help but see her in that light. So there really is no complete and total parting-in-perfectly-good- terms when best friends are involved. I believe that there will always be an underlying awkwardness and tension. Maybe there will be not so much tension between Harry and Ron as compared to the tension that can come up whenever Hermione and Ron meet in Harry's presence. If I were Hermione, I would sure be uncomfortable in the presence of my ex and my boyfriend, who happen to be best friends, and who also happen to be my best friends! O.O In a nutshell, either Ron/Hermione OR Harry/Hermione, and never both even at different times, please. Of course my vote goes to Ron/Hermione. :D ~Lexan From jamminjerry at madnessmansion.com Fri May 10 15:39:58 2002 From: jamminjerry at madnessmansion.com (Jarrod Jicha) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 11:39:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore as Potter's Secret Keeper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020510113652.009e9e60@mail.madnessmansion.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38642 Tamara had this to say >"It was mentioned in "Prisoner of Azkaban" that Dumbledore offered to >be the Potter's secret-keeper. Why in the world wouldn't they take >him up on this offer knowing that he was the only wizard whom >Voldemort is afraid of? You'd think he would be an obvious choice." Yeah, he would be an obvious choice, but then we probably wouldn't have this story if Dumbledore would have been the pick. They had to have someone that would be afarid of Voldemore just a little, right? Jarrod From jamminjerry at madnessmansion.com Fri May 10 15:48:11 2002 From: jamminjerry at madnessmansion.com (Jarrod Jicha) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 11:48:11 -0400 Subject: strange question about harry: was, Re: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore as Potter's Secret Keeper In-Reply-To: <20020510152635.18353.qmail@web20501.mail.yahoo.com> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020510114347.00a73b20@mail.madnessmansion.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38643 Eudora wrote (quoting someone else): >"The fact is >that the Potters were important. Desperately important. So >important that they needed to use the Fidelius charm. This doesn't >sound like your run of the mill spell or something that others were >doing as a normal precaution. This was "in extremis". This was unique. What I would like to know is why is Harry so important? Why did were the Potters so important. I know that Harry lived because of his mother, or whatever the reason, but why him? Why not Ron, or Hermione, or even Ginny? Thoughts on this one? Jarrod From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Fri May 10 19:01:46 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 19:01:46 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned/Resurrected Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38644 Eloise wrote: <> Ack! You're scaring me Buckbeak as foreshadowing of what happens when you run afoul of the ministry In this scenario, maybe the resurrection could be sort of a cleansing of the wizarding world Everyday wizards, shocked at this treatment of the Boy Who Lived, rise up and overthrow the ministry Oh, I hope not. I'd rather see Harry die in the lava, myself. Cindy wrote about Harry's resurrection: <> Oh, but she might. Why do you think she used the Time Turner in PoA, anyway? Didn't it seem a bit?tacked on? Out of place? I got the impression she was just setting up her time-travel "rules" so we would be familiar with them later on. Maybe hmm. ::has brain wave:: Maybe an older Harry saved *himself* that Halloween night? Maybe he used up his immortality-potential thing then? And his life since then, has actually been his resurrection? Caroline glares at Cindy challengingly, a bit put out that Cindy posted Imperious!Ron first. There. Put that in your you-know-what and smoke it. (No, Harry, not you!) Caroline From kerelsen at quik.com Fri May 10 19:12:45 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 15:12:45 -0400 Subject: WW Death penalty (was: Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry & Who Will Definitely Survive?] References: Message-ID: <00b401c1f856$adcc2e40$5421b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 38645 Eloise wrote: >Of course, a true parallel to Christ's crucifixion would require that Harry >dies at the hands of the judiciary, or the establishment in some form or >another . >We already have accusations from the MoM that Harry is dangerous, that his >scar (depending on reading) is a warning. (FIE!) >In another thread, I was ruminating on the fact that we haven't actually seen >a death penalty as such in the WW. Could it exist? Could it, just possibly, >be manifsted in the form of beheading? Well, we do have canonical evidence that beheading is a capital punishment in the WW. McNair coming to execute Buckbeak.... he had a bloody big axe, and, unfortuately, an apparently bloodthirsty, sadistic attitude toward doing the job. Yes, I know that Buckbeak was a Hippogriff and not a wizard or witch, but still... could this be a foreshadowing? As far as the Death penalty for human beings, considering the type of justice we've seen in the WW, it surprises me more that there ISN'T one than if there were. And the Dementor's Kiss is just as much a Death penalty as beheading, hanging, garrotting, etc. The personality/soul is gone from the body, just like ordinary death except that the body's involuntary processes keep going--at least until it starves to death or something like that (since without a mind to recognize the hunger and to know what to do about it and what safely assuages hunger, the Kissed body would be unable to care for itself--which leads to another thought... who DOES take care of the soulless bodies? It would be worse than caring for the inmates of an 18th century insane asylum! Ewww!). 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 greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri May 10 19:07:05 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 19:07:05 -0000 Subject: strange question about harry: was, Re: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore as Potter's Secret Keeper In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020510114347.00a73b20@mail.madnessmansion.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38646 Jarrod Jicha wrote: > What I would like to know is why is Harry so important? Why did were > the Potters so important. I know that Harry lived because of his > mother, or whatever the reason, but why him? Why not Ron, or > Hermione, or even Ginny? Thoughts on this one? > > Jarrod The easiest answer to the question is, of course, that Harry is important because he single-handedly and at the tender age of one managed what no other Wizard had been able to do: defeat Vodemort, end his Reign of Terror and bring peace to the Wizard community. However, this question was brought up when it was being talked about how the Potters where important, and probably want to know why *the Potter family* is important. Well, don't feel alone -so do we. It's on a high priority, at that, to discover exactly why the Potters needed to have a Fidelious charm cast on them (or better still, why Voldemort wanted to kill them). It has been speculated that one of the relevations of OotP (which JKR promised would tell us more things about Harry's parents) would be that little tidbit of information. Unfortunately, I doubt we will know it before book seven: it's far to central to give it away this soon, but then again, you never know. Any other thing is just theories and speculation. Which nonetheless, I'm going to give you. First, let get out some canon and wave it around: - The Potters performed the Fidelius charm, selecting as Secret Keeper one of the Marauders (Peter, although Sirius was considered and he pointed at Peter himself), even though they suspected one of the was a traitor (Lupin had the "honour") - Sirius himself was thinking of "going into hidding" (whether by using a Fidelius or simply going dog and living off rats, we don't know). - Another of the members of the "old gang", Mrs. Figg, has been posing as a muggle for 14 (or maybe more) years in Privet Drive. - Dumbledore knew about most of these things, but not the particular details (he knew that Sirius had been considered as secret keeper, but didn't know of the last-minute change) (Keep in mind that the rest is IMO) What does this give us? It seems that the "old gang" where in trouble, and were running all over the place ducking for cover. Things, as far as we know, were probably not going well for the "good side" and while they planned their return, they needed protection. Notice that I mention that Mrs. Figg could have spent more than 4 years as a muggle, since I doubt it's a thing it's easy to simulate for a wizard (then again, maybe she's muggle-born). If this is so, she was just re-assigned (since she knew the role so well) to Privet Drive to keep an eye on Harry, but could have been posing for a much longer time. On the other hand, other listees believe that it was only the Potters that were important, and they went into hidding for a variety of reasons. One of the most popular is that the first Trelawny prediction had something to do with the last Griffindors descendants (that would be Harry and his father), or some other variation, which would explain why Lilly could have been spared (Voldemort says so, but I've always believed it was the sort of false promise an evil overlord makes before swooping in for the kill). By making only Harry's paternal family to be important (whether because they're True Griffindors or some other genetical reason), it's automatically deduced that Harry, being the last remaining member of his family, should be important *even if he hadn't beaten Voldemort*. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Fri May 10 19:18:42 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 19:18:42 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore as Potter's Secret Keeper In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020510113652.009e9e60@mail.madnessmansion.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38647 Tamara said: > "It was mentioned in "Prisoner of Azkaban" that Dumbledore offered to > be the Potter's secret-keeper. Why in the world wouldn't they take > him up on this offer knowing that he was the only wizard whom > Voldemort is afraid of? You'd think he would be an obvious choice." Jarrod Jicha wrote: > Yeah, he would be an obvious choice, but then we probably wouldn't > have this story if Dumbledore would have been the pick. They had to > have someone that would be afarid of Voldemore just a little, right? > > Jarrod I believe that they didn't pick Dumbledore for the same reason they didn't pick Sirius: it was too obvious a choice. Canon about Fidelius is still quite light in details (maybe it will always be so), but I assume that if the secret keeper is captured or killed, or maybe just plainly exorcised (sp?) with the proper enchantment (which Voldemort would obviously know), the Fidelius would be lost. So, they chose the sort of person no-one would ever think had been trusted with that sort of responsibility: Peter (and it turns out those people who would've advised against it were right after all). Supposing that only a spell is needed, picture this situation: Dumbledore is selected secrtet keeper, and Voldemort tells all his Death Eaters to search for the Potters. At the same time he has one of his Death Eaters infiltrate Hogwarts (it's extremely easy, since he's done it three times in four years -without counting Peter himself- and Sirius has done so twice in two years. Hogwarts is riddled with holes) and, in a suicide mission, he exorcisises Dumbledore. Since all England is awashed with his agents, they find the Potters and finish them off before they can muster another protection. Okay, so in reality they played right into their hands by trying to outsmart them (you'd be amazed at how many times that can happen), but in this case not even the DE expected it: I'm sure that Voldemort was the most surprised when he heard Peter's news. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com Fri May 10 18:33:51 2002 From: merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com (Sherlock (a.k.a Merlyn)) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 19:33:51 +0100 Subject: The Prank, was Re: HPFGU Digest Number Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38648 I personally don't believe that Snape was entirely to blame for having the prank played on him. I get the impression (generally because I don't really like Black's character) that Black was someone who was slightly like Malfoy - a bit of a big head, cocky and always had something to say about the greasy kid who was very different and didn't seem to fit in. I believe that Black played the trick since he thought it would be a cool prank - possibly to get back at Snape for perhaps humiliating him in something (Potions perhaps? Or a verbal quip) - and never really thought nothing more of it than it was a cool prank to play on the greasy kid who you didn't really like and that has done something you don't like or said something you don't like. Hopefully J.K Rowling will let us into more secrets and things about Snape's time at school. I can explain why I don't really like Black's character, but it was my last day of school (until exams) and I'm tired (or just plain lazy ;)) but if anyone asks, I'm happy to explain. 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 _________________________________________________________________ Chat online met je vrienden en probeer MSN Messenger uit: http://messenger.msn.nl From dicentra at xmission.com Fri May 10 19:27:34 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 19:27:34 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned!Harry and The Prank In-Reply-To: <006d01c1f7d4$37d025c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38649 Dicentra stands near the rail of the destroyer Big Bang, feeling the breeze in her hair and enjoying the sound of water lapping against the hull. She looks down into the water to see if she can spot any <*((>< but instead she sees the glimmer of metal. She manuvers the destroyer's winch over that spot, lowers the hook, and cranks the winch. Up out of the water comes another can(n)on. Catlady: The yew tree is a symbol of death. Because: 1) Its berries are poisonous. 2) The English longbow was so great because it was made of yew wood, which is a natural composite. 3) It is traditionally planted in churchyards on purpose to consume the buried corpses as tree fertilizer. Dicentra ponders this and realizes: The yew tree is a Death Eater. She shivvers. It ain't from the cool breeze off the bay. She rolls the can(n)on to an empty spot on deck, carefully positioning it so it balances the others. Then she returns to the rail and looks toward the shore. She sees Laura, talking and gesticulating wildly, and sees a confused-looking boy handing her a snitch. What marvelous acoustics! Here she is, several hundred yards from shore, and yet Dicentra can hear Laura's conversation with poor Stoned!Harry as if they were right next to her. But Dicentra needs to speak with Laura about something Stoned!Harry probably shouldn't hear (again), so she gestures to Laura to toss the snitch across the bay again. Laura does, Stoned!Harry obliges by stumbling off after it, and Dicentra cups her hands around her mouth. "Laura," she calls. "Remember when you said... "Dumbledore only created Harry for the *potential* of immortality. The same potential Tom Riddle was born with." Laura nods. "Why do you think Dumbledore created Tom in the first place, if that's what he did? Do you think it had anything to do with defeating Grindelwald in 1945?" Laura shrugs. Dicentra figures there's some kind of chronology thing to be worked out, but she's too lazy to do it. "And another thing," Dicentra continues, "you said... "Remember, when Dumbledore created Tom, he was still very young and foolish and in love with his own power. He figured that by creating Tom he had done his fair share of preventing the "Dark Lord" from taking over, and he didn't have time to mess with some kid. Maybe the prophecy also specified that the Light Lord would be raised by Muggles? Anyway, it was creating Tom (and therefore, the Dark Lord in the prophecy) that was the BANG! that made Dumbledore go wise and good. Realizing that you may have doomed the world makes you responsible in a hurry." Laura listens expectantly. "It looks like you're suggesting that Harry is Dumbledore's second chance at redemption, or something," says Dicentra. "Maybe that's why he's so keen on giving other people second chances." As Laura ponders this, Dicentra remembers something that makes her blood boil. She jumps into the kayak and paddles off toward LOLLIPOPS, where she last saw GEORGE'S SISTER DIANA. (Diana has also been known to hang out on Big Bang, because, as you'll recall, she allows for Big Bangs to have occured in Snape's conversion, but they don't necessarily need to be there. That's also why she visits LOLLIPOPS from time to time. That and LOLLIPOPS's renowned hors d'ouvres.) Diana is disembarking LOLLIPOPS, champagne glass in hand, and getting into a dinghy, presumably to visit another favorite SHIP. Dicentra plows the bow of the kayak into the side of the dinghy to get Diana's attention. She has it. "How dare you!" Dicentra screams, standing in the teetering kayak. "How dare you! Some of your adherents say that Snape became disillusioned with the concept of right and wrong partly because of how Dumbledore handled The Prank!" Diana is taken aback. Some of the champagne sloshes out of the glass and onto her hand. She doesn't even notice. "We're pretty sure that Sirius didn't get expelled, because he's allowed to practice magic like anyone else, which means he finished school. That means that Dumbledore gave him a Second Chance. And if anyone should understand Second Chances, it's your beloved Snapey-poo! How dare he continue to condemn Sirius when both of them are 'Redeemed Sinners!' I mean, where does he get off....!" Dicentra's rant is cut short when Stoned!Harry, curious about the shouting, ambles over, points his wand at Dicentra, and mutters "Petrificus Totalus." Dicentra's entire body immediately goes rigid and she tips over, right into the drink. Stoned!Harry reached down and grabs her hair before she sinks, holding her face above water, and tows her back toward the Big Bang. Diana, still nonplussed, mumbles something about "...right out of nowhere..." and settles into the dinghy, wiping champagne from her hand. --Dicentra, dripping all over the destroyers deck and still a little stiff even after Stoned!Harry utters the countercharm For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=13 From merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com Fri May 10 19:20:22 2002 From: merlyn_dawson at hotmail.com (Sherlock (a.k.a Merlyn)) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 20:20:22 +0100 Subject: The Prank and the Choking Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38650 "Does anyone have any ideas about this? --Doldra" At the end of the book, after Remus has burst in (PoA). Black say's something (not got book with me, can't be sure) or agrees that he *was* responsible for the Potter's death. Now, I'm curious as to *why* Black switched with Pettigrew - was it because Black felt that he was being tempted by Voldemort's prophesies (sorry, spelling off I know), and didn't want to admit his weakness by himself giving away the Potter's, and so he got Pettigrew (Someone he *knew* was weaker than him and more vunerable) to switch. Just so he wouldn't feel bad when the Potter's were 'got' by Voldemort. Or was it because he felt guilty because he switched with Pettigrew. As for him choking Harry -- blinded by rage, or blinded by the hate that he suddenly felt for someone he thought was hiding Pettigrew? Maybe Black thought it was impossible that other people didn't believe Pettigrew was still alive. Maybe he'd kidded himself that it wasn't just him that knew Pettigrew was alive. Um, interesting stuff eh? Call me sad but I'm sort of hoping Black and Snape have a bit of a scrap (fight) later on. 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 _________________________________________________________________ Meld je aan bij de grootste e-mailservice wereldwijd met MSN Hotmail: http://www.hotmail.com/nl From Edblanning at aol.com Fri May 10 20:49:03 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 16:49:03 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Snape, Sirius and the Prank (was:Stoned!Harry and Message-ID: <33.26d926ec.2a0d8c3f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38651 Dicentra: > As Laura ponders this [theory that Harry is Dumbledore's second chance}, > Dicentra remembers something that makes her > blood boil. She jumps into the kayak and paddles off toward > LOLLIPOPS, where she last saw GEORGE'S SISTER DIANA. (Diana has also > been known to hang out on Big Bang, because, as you'll recall, she > allows for Big Bangs to have occured in Snape's conversion, but they > don't necessarily need to be there. That's also why she visits > LOLLIPOPS from time to time. That and LOLLIPOPS's renowned hors > d'ouvres.) > > Diana is disembarking LOLLIPOPS, champagne glass in hand, and getting > into a dinghy, presumably to visit another favorite SHIP. Dicentra > plows the bow of the kayak into the side of the dinghy to get Diana's > attention. She has it. > > "How dare you!" Dicentra screams, standing in the teetering kayak. > "How dare you! Some of your adherents say that Snape became > disillusioned with the concept of right and wrong partly because of > how Dumbledore handled The Prank!" > > Diana is taken aback. Some of the champagne sloshes out of the glass > and onto her hand. She doesn't even notice. > > "We're pretty sure that Sirius didn't get expelled, because he's > allowed to practice magic like anyone else, which means he finished > school. That means that Dumbledore gave him a Second Chance. And if > anyone should understand Second Chances, it's your beloved Snapey-poo! > How dare he continue to condemn Sirius when both of them are > 'Redeemed Sinners!' I mean, where does he get off....!" > > Dicentra's rant is cut short when Stoned!Harry, curious about the > shouting, ambles over, points his wand at Dicentra, and mutters > "Petrificus Totalus." Dicentra's entire body immediately goes rigid > and she tips over, right into the drink. Stoned!Harry reached down > and grabs her hair before she sinks, holding her face above water, and > tows her back toward the Big Bang. > > Diana, still nonplussed, mumbles something about "...right out of > Sometime later Diana remembers a strange encounter with a somewhat deranged female, last seen taking a bath in the Bay. What was that she was saying? Second Chances? Yes, that was it, why does.....er..Snapey-poo, was that the term?....why does he resent Sirius being given a second chance when he's been given one himself? Isn't it obvious? It's because he's a .......(well, if you want to know, you'll have to come in close and listen carefully because Diana hesitates to use such language in public. She's very well brought up, you know.) That's of course, if he *does* resent Sirius being given a second chance. If Stoned!Harry hadn't intervened so quickly (and it's probably a good thing that he did, giving Diana time to gather her thoughts; as we know she gets confused), Diana might have pointed out that we have no proof other than hearsay that Snape's attitude towards Sirius has anything to do with the Prank. The only times Snape himself mentions it are a) to denigrate James' heroism and b) to illustrate the fact that Sirius *is* potentially dangerous. His attitude to Sirius in PoA stems from the fact that he believes (like the rest of the WW) that Sirius *did* betray the Potters, *did* murder the Muggles and *is* trying to kill Harry. In addition, he has a personal grudge against Sirius for the Prank and whatever else we might want to throw in in terms of CUPID'S BLUDGERS, Florence Trapezoids etc. and Sirius *has an equal and opposite grudge against Snape*. But this is nothing to do with Diana. "How dare you!" screams Diana at the small, white, bleeding-heart-festooned figure she can see still glaring somewhat petulantly across the Bay from the Big Bang, "How dare you rant on about Snape like that. Second chances? Yes, your precious Sirius *was* given a second chance, wasn't he. And Dumbledore's giving him a third. So *he* should understand, shouldn't he? The grudge is as much his as Snape's. And we don't even know what Snape did (other than snooping) that was so bad that Sirius decided to feed him to a werewolf, do we? " Diana has never postulated that the Light side are saints, quite the opposite. Diana explains why the Light side are grey, not bright, shining white. They have their faults; they just also happen to believe in morality. It doesn't mean they have to live up to their ideals. They are, after all, as Dicentra pointed out Redeemed Sinners, not sinless. Eloise, wishing we could forget the dratted Prank, wondering how on earth we got back here (*please* lets not have another Snape vs. Sirius war) and not wanting to get into another argument with Dicentra, to whom she is extremely grateful for the below, saving her the bother of typing it out. For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hypotheticalle y.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=13 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pollux46 at hotmail.com Fri May 10 21:47:19 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 21:47:19 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned!Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38652 Bang! Uproar in Theory Bay! The shippers are revolting! < err, didn't mean that quite as it came out guys. . .> Fish are zipping through the waves below at top speed while wild ca(n)nons pelt after them, fired into the water by the fearsome, bloodthirsty crew above, intent on hitting every single biblical symbol that comes their way. In the distance a skinny, bespectacled figure looking somewhat dizzy (rather Stoned! In fact) is skidding along the surface apparently being towed towards land by the seriously overloaded kayak. Dread settles in Charis's stomach. "But?but that's Harry! Hey! Hey, wait! What are you doing with him? Stop! Where are you go. . ." but the words die in her mouth for it is right then that she spots them: a spiffy new guillotine decorating the shore with a sturdy--looking crucifix right behind. "But. . . but . . . Why? I thought we all loved Harry? I thought he was our leader? I thought he was the very reason we are all here in the Bay in the first place!" But nothing can deter the fiendy mob, which, now foaming at the mouth with excitement, merely let out a hellish howl and row more fiercely. Only one sailor stops her raving long enough to explain: Cindy : >He has to Meet His >Maker *right then.* > >Ah, come on. Wouldn't it be better (with "better" being defined as >infinitely more Big) to have Harry make the Ultimate Sacrifice and >take Voldemort out with him? Oh, I see. You're getting hungry. Book Five is late coming out, so your supply of Ca(n)non has dried up. . . Of course you couldn't resist such a proposal. It's you idea of a feast, isn't it? Hmmm. But look here. Is Harry dying really all that Big Bang? Let's think about it. . . Hmmm. Erm. Weeell, I'd have to say that I personally I think. . . that is really . . . errr, I mean, to confess the truth an' all. . . Errr. . . No. Charis squirms. Oh, don't stare like that! I'm not saying death isn't * sad* or anything. I'd be devastated if Harry were to die, I really would. Promise. I'm not * insensitive* or anything and it's not like I wouldn't cry, I would, I would, I'd cry my eyes out. But I wouldn't be impressed. And, no, I wouldn't feel a Bang. Humph. Oh, stop it. Look, I said cut it out, ok? * I* don't have any feelings? You're the ones who want to lynch the boy! Right. When you've all put your eyes back in, maybe you'll be able to see what I' m getting at. The way I see it, dying is not Big Bang. Or at least not Big Bang enough for Harry Potter. I mean, how does that make him special, huh? How does it make him even * different*? * Anyone* can die. It's easy. All you have to do is have a heart attack, or fall out of a helicopter, or get too close to Kryptonite or something. You don't even have to be a * wizard*. Any old Muggle can manage just fine. And plus, it's so * used*. In books everyone is always dying left, right and centre. Plop, plop, plop. Yawn, yawn, yawn. It's getting a good hero who'll actually * survive* that's hard. Every author who wants to provide his readers with cheap thrills kills off the lead. It's just so * clich?*. What do I think would cause a good ker?Boom? Hmmm, well, what you've got to do really is give Harry a reason to * want* to retain his immortality. Verily put him in temptation, place him on the horns of dilemma, haul him to the throngs of larruping, corrupting, inexpungible * desire*. Make Harry want to do Wrong. After all he's a mighty wizard isn't he? Powerfully magical. Like Dumbledore he must be capable of both great Evil as well as great Good. Let's see that. Let Harry the Seriously Evil Wizard emerge. And let the reader * sympathise* with him. Ha. Bang! How? Well, I don't know, use your imagination. Obviously he couldn't want eternal life just for himself. That's no great boggy predicament. Of course Harry would chose saving the world over himself any day without turning a hair. So he's got to want the stone for someone else. Err. . .So what if somebody else Harry cares for is dying and the only way they could possibly be saved is by using Harry's Inner Stone? And so Harry's got to choose between somebody else's death and Voldemort's eternal rule? And Harry goes for the first? And than the WW is of course eventually saved nevertheless, but only after a series of erratic narrative devises during which the audience "Oooh" and "Aaaah" incessantly. Or. . . Or. . . Or you could twist the story a la Frodo and make Harry feel the lure of world domination. Intoxicate him. Corrupt him. Make him realise he could reign over the world alone, invincible cosmic powers at his wand--tip. Naturally he wouldn't in the end, you realise, and somehow it would all turn out for the best, but at least the reader would have enjoyed a minor heart seizure in the meanwhile. Anyway, plain old run?off?the?mill death just won't cut it for me. Cedric's already done it, Harry's parents have already done it, countless other good witches and wizards did it and countless more will do it in the new books again. Even the special giving ?up? immortality version has been pulled by Flamel in the very first book. I want something extraordinary for Harry. Something exceptional. Something really, * really* Bangy. And also, well, I really want him to * live* too. I like Harry. Abigail wrote: >Yes, I know, how LOTR >can you get, but there's something very satisfying in the hero who saves the >world but not for himself, and Tolkein managed to do it without killing Frodo >off. Yes! And I really * really* appreciated that! It's so easy to off your heroes in favour of Big Bangs, but to sustain the central protagonist ( no wrong-- * all* the central protagonist's besides one) * and* give such a bedazzling show of fireworks, well, that, * that* is difficult. That's the challenge. Besides, JKR has all but said Harry's going to die. Does that prove that he will? Ha, no way! It proves the exact opposite. The very fact that we are all so worked up about whether or not Harry will die is actually proof that he will stay alive?though at what cost I know not. After all the possibility that he will depart for the happy casting grounds in Book 7 must have occurred to every single person who ever got enthralled by a HP book in the last six years. The surprise element ?essential for Big Bangs?is DOA. Ca(n)nons? You want ca(n)nons? I've got ca(n)nons! In fact Dicentra helpfully pointed points out the first one: >"And the scene later when Ron's tin parrot takes the head off Harry's >rubber haddock." > Hmm, but look at what comes next will you! Harry is called over be McGonagall. He fears the worst. Bad consequences will arise from his haddock's gritty demise. These hasty conclusions are however quickly rebutted and Harry soon has other fish to fry. He is now on a quest to seek his True Love. See? Love conquers Death. Cindy: >Need more evidence that someone is going to lose their head? What >happens in PoA, I ask? How is Buckbeak to be executed? Of all the >ways JKR could have chosen to kill Buckbeak, she chose *beheading*. Ah, but Buckbeak didn't die, did he? At least not forever. Hmmm. . . maybe all this is tying up with Eloise's idea of Harry's spiritual immortality. Although frankly, Cindy, I fail to see how that compromises FEATHERBOAS with keeping Harry alive. Surely we won't continue following Harry's adventures as a disembodied spirit? No. I want Harry * really* alive. >Still not convinced? What is the thing Professor Trelawney wants >Harry to see in the crystal ball during his divination exam? Yup, >that's right. A beheading! A beheading from which Harry *saves* >Buckbeak! Couldn't have put it better myself. Harry thinks Buckbeaks death is inevitable, yet Harry, with steadfast loyalty towards his friend Hagrid and insisting doggedly on what he believes in, finally conquers over Buckbeak's death. Harry escapes death. He flies away from it. Something that I might point out that Harry is in the habit of doing quite frequently. (during the First Task, after Voldemort's attack on Sirius's motorbike, practically every time he mounts a broom, with the Flying Ford Anglia and when he and Voldemort are * raised* into the air after their wands connect.) >And, pray tell, what was the very first thing Harry saw in the >teacup in his very first Divination Class? *A Cross*! Yeah, but the cross was * wonky*. Clearly an indication that, though Harry will indeed come dangerously close to death, the implements devised for his destruction will ultimately fail his enemies. But I must admit to getting a bit confused. Isn't the cross a reference to Ron's fate? And anyway, we're all overlooking what's comes next: "?but there's a thing that could be the sun. Hang on. . . that means "great happiness" . . . so you're going to suffer but be very happy. . ." Sounds about right to me. Eloise: >Is the Gryffindor ghost being (nearly) decapitated (and >on the same date as James and Lily's deaths) significant? (There's >potentially a lot of mileage in these ghosts. What *is* Nick's backstory? >Myrtle's has been of great significance.) The Gryffindor ghost? You mean Sir Nickolas de Mimsy?Porpington? You mean Nick? * Nearly*-- Headless Nick? Need I say more. Charis Julia, who loves Caroline's "Stoned Harry" theory and is totally sold on it, but finds the Dead!Harry part rather fishy. <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))><<"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< From dicentra at xmission.com Fri May 10 22:47:37 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:47:37 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38653 Dicentra looks up from toweling her hair dry to hear Charis Julia complain: > Hmmm. But look here. Is Harry dying really all that Big Bang? Let's > think about it. . . Hmmm. Erm. Weeell, I'd have to say that I > personally I think. . . that is really . . . errr, I mean, to confess > the truth an' all. . . Errr. . . No. No, no, no, no, no, no, no! Don't get us wrong. DYING isn't the bang. Like you say, it's been done to... um... death. The bang is twofold: Harry is Immortal because he's the Stone AND Harry's head is going to come off and roll around on the ground. That's Bangy. What happens surrounding that, whether he voluntarily gives up his immortality to save someone or he's tempted to keep his immortality for Evil Reasons, or he's beheaded and then ressurrects at the Worst Possible Moment (for Voldemort) or any of that is still up for debate and speculation (and what good is Theory Bay if it isn't littered with speculation?). So Charis Julia speculates: > What do I think would cause a good ker?Boom? Hmmm, well, what you've > got to do really is give Harry a reason to *want* to retain his > immortality. Verily put him in temptation, place him on the horns of > dilemma, haul him to the throngs of larruping, corrupting, > inexpungible *desire*. Make Harry want to do Wrong. After all he's a > mighty wizard isn't he? Powerfully magical. Like Dumbledore he must > be capable of both great Evil as well as great Good. Let's see that. > Let Harry the Seriously Evil Wizard emerge. And let the reader > *sympathise* with him. > Ha. Bang! > There ya go! That WOULD make for a good loud Bang or two. I like it! Come on board and have a soda! [snip more good speculation] CJ: > Anyway, plain old run?off?the?mill death just won't cut it for me. > Cedric's already done it, Harry's parents have already done it, > countless other good witches and wizards did it and countless more > will do it in the new books again. Even the special giving ?up? > immortality version has been pulled by Flamel in the very first book. > I want something extraordinary for Harry. Something exceptional. > Something really, *really* Bangy. > > And also, well, I really want him to *live* too. I like Harry. > Dicey: And maybe you can have your cake and eat it too. Stoned!Harry could easily die and rise again. [more snippage] CJ: > Ca(n)nons? You want ca(n)nons? I've got ca(n)nons! In fact Dicentra > helpfully pointed points out the first one: > Dicey: > >"And the scene later when Ron's tin parrot takes the head off Harry's > >rubber haddock." CJ: > Hmm, but look at what comes next will you! Harry is called over be > McGonagall. He fears the worst. Bad consequences will arise from his > haddock's gritty demise. These hasty conclusions are however quickly > rebutted and Harry soon has other fish to fry. He is now on a quest > to seek his True Love. See? Love conquers Death. > > Cindy: > >Still not convinced? What is the thing Professor Trelawney wants > >Harry to see in the crystal ball during his divination exam? Yup, > >that's right. A beheading! A beheading from which Harry *saves* > >Buckbeak! > CJ: > Couldn't have put it better myself. Harry thinks Buckbeaks death is > inevitable, yet Harry, with steadfast loyalty towards his friend > Hagrid and insisting doggedly on what he believes in, finally > conquers over Buckbeak's death. Harry escapes death. He flies away > from it. Something that I might point out that Harry is in the habit > of doing quite frequently. "--but there's a thing that could be the sun. Hang on. . . that > means "great happiness" . . . so you're going to suffer but be very > happy. . ." Dicey: Saaaaay! You've got something here. We've got the beheading motifs, but they're followed up with positive consequences. I like this. I really like this. I was getting so worried about Harry's gruesome death, that he'd save the world but not for himself, and that JKR's insistence on not writing any more stories about Harry was based on the fact that he'd be GONE! > > Charis Julia, who loves Caroline's "Stoned Harry" theory and is > totally sold on it, but finds the Dead!Harry part rather fishy. --Dicentra, who thinks it might actually be a Dead!Herring > <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))> <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri May 10 23:03:57 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 19:03:57 -0400 Subject: Harry Potter and, er, the Philosopher's Stone Message-ID: <126965FA.3434E493.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38654 Caroline wrote: > I am one of the few (heck, maybe I'm the *only* one) who believes that > Harry's Big Bangy secret is that he is a living embodiment of the > philosopher's stone. (This is all based on an alchemical > interpretation of the symbols that surround Harry; stag, phoenix, > lion, serpent, color green, red, etc. I could go into great detail > but I'll restrain myself :--) Not that he's necessarily immortal, but > that he holds within his being the potential for eternal life if > properly activated. > > Anyway, if I'm right, I think that Harry will be making the choice to > renounce at least this part of his powers. I think this whole plot > idea would really tie the series together; Harry would have grown to > understand life & death to the point that he would choose to make the > same decision (we assume) Flamel made in SS. > > I think I remember JKR saying somewhere (sorry can't remember > citation) that you could sum up the theme of the series as facing up > to death. > > And my theory would *really* make Harry the anti-Voldemort; he would > choose to freely give up that which V. has spent his life seeking in > terribly evil ways. > The above is what started the Stoned!Harry thread (ironically, a response to a now-forgotten topic). I wanted to snip it to minimise the amount of quoted material, but it's too good: there just isn't anything to snip. What I want to do now is pick up on some aspects that have been somewhat obscured in the subsequent discussion. The first is that Caroline chose her words very carefully: "... he is a living embodiment of the philosopher's stone... Not that he's necessarily immortal, but that he holds within his being the potential for eternal life if properly activated." I much prefer this to the simplistic 'Harry is immortal' theory. After all, the stone itself is not immortal - it merely is the means to immmortality for wizards (and Muggles) That does mean that I don't take a lot of the canon evidence (Dumbledore unconcerned about Harry in danger, various beheadings and the like) the way other list members do. I also think that the parallel between Christ and Harry is an entirely separate topic: there is no need to focus on immortality, whether actual or latent, to draw that parallel. (And it's very difficult to draw right: if you take one book chock full of symbols, such as Harry Potter, and line the symbols up against those found in another such book, like the Bible, you are bound to get some correspondences. IMO, a bit more structure than that is required.) So I think you TBAY-ers out there may have some sort of catamaran. Anyway, back to the topic. At one level, this is neat, because it gives Voldemort a reason to be interested in Harry which does not depend on some hackneyed 'first prophecy': he is after the immortality which can be unlocked from Harry (this is what Laura said). It is then an open question whether V was trying to AK Harry as a preliminary towards using his body, or whether he tried some other 'stone-power-extracting' spell, which (because of Lily's love) went wrong, leaving V damaged and Harry with Parseltongue and a V-sensitive scar. The second option has the very intriguing feature of giving a genuine role to Lily's love in saving Harry and damaging Voldemort, while avoiding the issue of all those other presumed mothers who died for their children. The theory is also neat because it virtually demands that Harry give up his stone-powers whatever they may be in detail (and note, it may not *require* him to die - it is those who would use him who stand not to live on), unless we are seriously to envisage an ending in which the entire WW will now have ready access to immortality. Oh, sorry, the reason I think that is neat is because it makes Harry, the immortality-renouncer, a foil to Voldemort the immortality-seeker, as Caroline said. On the understanding that Harry is renouncing immortality in the spirit of Dumbledore, who destroys the stone, rather than Flamel, who renounces his personal immortality. I'm not quite sure that this is quite right as it stands, though. The Philosopher's Stone, as I understand it, was itself an allegorical object. The alchemists wanted to make it, not to get money and unending physical life, but because understanding its manufacture would help understand how to transmute the base metal of human nature into the gold of a perfect (or divine?) nature, of eternal spiritual value. It is JKR's genius to introduce the physical stone, and transmute its meaning into temptation for physical gold and life, while possibly allowing the original meaning to stand also. Taking Caroline's symbology (explained in a later post) at face value, the meaning of the stone may be that you need both Gryffindor and Slytherin, both Harry and Voldemort to make something which will allow the WW to face death as the 'next great adventure' with prosperity of spirit. Harry's role is indeed to renounce the temptations of wealth and longevity (which Dumbledore has already specifically identified as the two things that people would choose - "but people have a knack of choosing what is bad for them": now *there's* a Christian theme for discussion!). I'm not sure Harry needs any special potential for immortality (or wealth) to fulfil this symbolic role - he just needs to be tempted. On this understanding, there is no particular call for Harry to die at the end - he just has to accept that a normal lifespan for everybody is the best way. No short cuts: the physical stone is meant to be a symbol; as an actual mechanism it is in essence a delusive short cut. Perhaps the message is that to be fully human you have to first desire immortality (Voldemort) and then renounce it (Harry). You have to recognise that there is more to life than life, and then give it up to get it. So, the bottom line is, not that Harry is an embodiment of the physical stone, but that (possibly in conjunction with Voldemort) he is a better symbol of the same thing that the stone is a symbol for. Clear? 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 dicentra at xmission.com Fri May 10 23:06:42 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 23:06:42 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Snape, Sirius and the Prank In-Reply-To: <33.26d926ec.2a0d8c3f@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38655 Dicentra, now changed into dry clothing and wrapped in a blanket, hears a lone voice wafting over the water. She looks up. It's Diana, in the dinghy, drifting across the Bay and muttering to herself: "What was that she was saying? Second Chances? Yes, that was it, why does.....er..Snapey-poo, was that the term?....why does he resent Sirius being given a second chance when he's been given one himself? Isn't it obvious? It's because he's a .......(well, if you want to know, you'll have to come in close and listen carefully because Diana hesitates to use such language in public. She's very well brought up, you know.) "That's of course, if he *does* resent Sirius being given a second chance. If Stoned!Harry hadn't intervened so quickly...., Diana might have pointed out that we have no proof other than hearsay that Snape's attitude towards Sirius has anything to do with the Prank..... Sirius *has an equal and opposite grudge against Snape*. But this is nothing to do with Diana. "'How dare you!' screams Diana at the small, white, bleeding-heart-festooned figure she can see still glaring somewhat petulantly across the Bay from the Big Bang, 'How dare you rant on about Snape like that. Second chances? Yes, your precious Sirius *was* given a second chance, wasn't he. And Dumbledore's giving him a third....'" Dicentra comes this | | close to leaning over the railing and shouting "Hey! You wanna piecea me? That ain't no Third Chance because Sirius ain't guilty," but she sees that Diana is clutching several portable can(n)ons, and none of the can(n)ons on Big Bang can be aimed at The Prank. "Eloise, wishing we could forget the dratted Prank, wondering how on earth we got back here (*please* lets not have another Snape vs. Sirius war) and not wanting to get into another argument with Dicentra..." I should say not... Dicentra swaggers back to her cabin on Big Bang, where she begins to rifle through stacks of posts for the Sirius FAQ. The stack of posts on The Prank is the biggest of all. "Awful lot of Sirius-bashing," she muses. "That must be what set me off." She notices her calendar on the wall. Full moon tonight, too. No wonder she went ballistic. --Dicentra, who won't be participating in any more posts on The Prank, thank you very much For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hypotheticalle y.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=13 From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com Sat May 11 00:43:45 2002 From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (ltg3asu) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 00:43:45 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned!Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38656 charisjulia wrote: "What do I think would cause a good ker?Boom? Hmmm, well, what you've got to do really is give Harry a reason to * want* to retain his immortality. Verily put him in temptation, place him on the horns of dilemma, haul him to the throngs of larruping, corrupting, inexpungible * desire*. Make Harry want to do Wrong. After all he's a mighty wizard isn't he? Powerfully magical. Like Dumbledore he must be capable of both great Evil as well as great Good. Let's see that. Let Harry the Seriously Evil Wizard emerge. And let the reader * sympathise* with him." Me: Ok, ok. I know. I know! Enough religious iconography already, but, here's one more I plucked from nowhere when reading cj's post. Temptation? Like in the last temptation of Christ? In the wilderness, before the betrayal and his crucifixion? Need to let this stew. Will add more later. L. Terrell Gould, III From sailor_moirae at hotmail.com Sat May 11 01:21:58 2002 From: sailor_moirae at hotmail.com (sailor_moirae) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 01:21:58 -0000 Subject: A theory... One variable that would change Harry for the worst.... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38657 In Philosopher's Stone, Draco offered his hand to Harry but Harry rejected it. And then the sorting hat WANTED to put him in Slytherin. My theory is that if Harry had ACCEPTED Draco's hand, he wouldn't have minded to be put into Slytherin. It was because of Draco that Harry didn't want to be put into Slytherin. Well, WHAT IF Harry did shake Draco's hand? I believe that that variable is what determines Harry's future... In good/evil, Gryffindor/Slytherin and life/death. Think about it... Draco said that he'd help Harry see which Wizarding families are better... Clearly Harry Potter was one of the better. It was because Harry rejected Draco that they have the rivalry. The Sorting Hat said that Harry would be great in Slytherin, and like I said before, Harry probably would have went into Slytherin if it wasn't for Draco. On another not, the wand... Voldie's and Harry's wands are brothers. Why would that wand pick Harry? Dumbledore said himself that Harry has some of Voldie in him. On a hilarious note... think about what the canon would be like if Draco and Harry were a team... *shudders*... LOL. Peace! Moirae From angelsound2001 at yahoo.com Sat May 11 01:08:43 2002 From: angelsound2001 at yahoo.com (Jeanne Vultaggio) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 18:08:43 -0700 (PDT) Subject: TBAY: ToadKeeper Meets Reverse Memory Charm Neville In-Reply-To: <1021018172.2981.23213.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020511010843.95317.qmail@web10804.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38658 cindysphynx wrote: <> I just couldn't help wondering, if Harry can relive the deaths of his parents that occurred when he was 15 months old, isn't it quite possible Neville could have similar memories even without magical assistance? Granted, it could be that Harry is extra-special in this regard as in others, but OTOH it could be common in the wizarding world for memories, especially traumatic ones, to persist from infancy. I also can't help wondering whether exposure to a dementor wouldn't bring out the memory of such trauma even if a person was under the influence of a regular memory charm. I don't know whether there's anything in canon to support that idea, but I think it's an interesting question. --Raven __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Sat May 11 02:55:29 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (Heidi Rugg) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 22:55:29 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry References: Message-ID: <001b01c1f897$5198c0c0$6401a8c0@barefoot> No: HPFGUIDX 38659 I've been reading the Stoned!Harry theory with great interest, but am left pondering a few questions... (Stepping gingerly into the kayak, cringing that I may be rocking it...) 1. If Harry is truly immortal, why would Dumbledore have to have set protective "old magic" over him so that when he is in the care of his relatives, he cannot be harmed? 2. Why was Dumbledore concerned about Harry dying ("almost lost you") at the end of PS/SS with Quirrel/Voldemort? I'm not entirely convinced about this theory, but am intrigued by all of the symbolism and literary references. It's very fascinating...so, by all means, don't stop! Heidi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Sat May 11 05:42:02 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 05:42:02 -0000 Subject: A Special Bludger (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38660 Dobby in his first solo! A Special Bludger (from CoS, Chap. 10) (to the tune of My Special Angel) Dedicated to Mariner Hear the original at: http://www.foxlink.net/~bobnbren/1950s.html#M THE SCENE: Pomfrey's infirmary. DOBBY confesses to the bed-ridden Harry that he was the cause of his Quidditch injury DOBBY: I charmed a special Bludger I don't use kid gloves My spell piled down on you To make sure push came to shove You are my fav'rite wizard You're so kind and wise So although it seems absurd It's you I'd pulverize Elf life has improved since you shelved the Dark Lord But dark plots would restore his reign The Chamber's door is now ajar So you must go home again! But you refuse to budge here You would guard your friends Is Dobby wrong to judge here? My master I can't offend Dobby said too much, so his head he'll bang hard Just as he once ironed his hands I'll said myself, I'm a bad elf I don't mind my master's commands! Dark powers bear a grudge now It fills me with fear I can't leave one small smudge now Lacking clothes I'm no freer! I've got to disappear! (With a cracking noise, DOBBY abruptly vanishes) - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From catlady at wicca.net Sat May 11 06:53:48 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 06:53:48 -0000 Subject: Rules / Ghosts & Poltergeist / 1945 / Harry the Slytherin / Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38661 David Frankis wrote: > (I wonder, are *any* of the HP characters intended to be something > which the reader should aspire to emulate? I think not myself.) Harry! > but perhaps JKR's real message here is that we don't need ever make > a judgement, *Maybe* we don't need to make a judgment of Arthur's behavior, but we certainly do have to make a judgment of our own possible behaviors in order to choose among them. Cindy Sphynx wrote: > Now, ghosts aren't my specialty, so forgive me if I mess this up. I > get the sense, however, that ghosts and poltergeists can act on > their surroundings. Throwing water balloons and such. Stealing the > egg of a champion (no, Peeves didn't do this, but Filch thought he > could). Peeves the poltergeist can act on his surroundings as you mention -- Nick got him to knock over some furniture to distract Filch from catching Harry on some night-time escapade. The ghosts have very limited ability to act on their surroundings -- IIRC Myrtle's weeping makes her toilet overflow, and flushing it can flush her down the pipes; the extremely rotted food at the deathday party smells so strongly that the ghosts can get a faint sensation of taste/smell (which are much the same thing for us living humans) by floating through it; humans get very cold when touched by a ghost, but the touch passes right through them. This is another evidence that poltergeists are not ghosts, besides the bit in the first appearance of the ghosts at the Arrival Feast in SS: "My dear Friar, haven't we given Peeves all the chances he deserves? He gives us all a bad name and you know, he's not really even a ghost -- I say, what are you all doing here?" Dicey wrote: > "Why do you think Dumbledore created Tom in the first place, if > that's what he did? Do you think it had anything to do with > defeating Grindelwald in 1945?" http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/timeline_main.html Sometimes I think some of the years in Steve's timeline are a year early or a year late, but mostly I agree with them. Tom Marvolo Riddle born 1926, finished school of Hogwarts in June 1945... Sailor Moirae wrote: > On a hilarious note... think about what the canon would be like if > Draco and Harry were a team... *shudders*... LOL. There are a few Alternate Universe fanfics with that plot, including most of the second volume of Barb's trilogy. http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb/ From chetah27 at hotmail.com Sat May 11 05:09:02 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 05:09:02 -0000 Subject: Ron/Sirius Theory,SHIP- Harry/Hermione/ Ron- Hermione/Krum, Neville Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38662 Well, this is just a way for me to reply to a bunch of suff without posting about 5 posts(plus, it's late, I'm tired, and I have to get up early tomorrow). ~Elizabeth: Ooh...I like this theory, I like this theory alot. And that is also the only way I see Ron doing anything evil, is by unintentionally betraying his friends, like Sirius did. I hope that in the books to come we learn more about Harry's mother, Lily, so as to see if she parallels well with Hermione or if Hermione is better matched with Lupin. ~Penny: >>>>> In the words of his creator, from a Scholastic chat in Feb 2000: Q: Is Harry Potter ever going to fall in love with Hermione or is he going to fall in love with Ginny Weasley? A: In Book IV Harry does decide he likes a girl, but it's not Hermione or Ginny. However, he's only 14, so there's plenty of time for him to change his mind. ;-) I'm focusing on the "he's only 14 and so there's time to change his mind" aspect, btw. I emphasize that he's never given Ginny Weasley a second thought either, but there are scores of people hoping he eventually will. People do change their minds about their friends in terms of romance. Happens *all* the time in the real world.> Hmm.... the "he's only 14, so there's plenty of time for him to change his mind." could be a hint, or just be a misleading sort of answer. Perhaps JKR is not wanting to give things away, and so an illusive answer is the best way to go. *shrugs* But everyone seems positive that there shall be romance in the next book, so okay. ~Penny: < <<> And Ron hasn't? <<>>>>> Not always. I personally think the whole "opposites attract" thing is a bit cliched, but that may be because I don't see too much evidence for it happening very often in real life myself (I mean more than just my own personal circumstances ... but family & friends as well).> Lol, point taken. But then again, we don't know Ron's thoughts, we just know his actions...and Ron's thoughts and feelings don't always follow his actions. But I still cannot see the Harry/Hermione thing happening. Perhaps I shall be made to eat my words when the next book comes out(whenever that may be...), and I shall happily do so with many large bites. But for the moment, I would much rather see each of them hook up with someone outside the Trio, if not just to introduce a new character. ~Ahketsi: Oh, I hadn't really thought about this. I liked Krum also, but I don't see how he can be in the books again unless he transfers to Hogwarts(perhaps to be closer to Hermione?), or he and Hermione remain owl-pals and their letters are mentioned. I still love Hermione's quote at Ron when he accuses her of bieng a traitor and such after he had first seen her with Krum. If I owned HP4, I'd look it up, but darn... ~Ahketsi: I really like Neville's character! Yes, I think Neville needs a big self-esteem booster, and Snape's potions classes really don't help him at all, lol. He needs to snag a bit of the spotlight. I really hope his character continues to grow sine the mention of his parents past, that would get quite interesting. And doesn't Neville possibly have something of a crush on Hermione? With all the talk of romance in the next book, I have to wonder if this isn't a possibility... Oh, a thought just came to me- I wonder if wizards celebrate Valentine's Day? I don't think they've mentioned this holiday yet in the books... "aldrea279" From pennylin at swbell.net Sat May 11 12:24:25 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 07:24:25 -0500 Subject: Hermione and Ron (was Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione) Message-ID: <00a201c1f8e6$ca3b3950$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38663 Hi -- Penny wrote: >It'd be great actually if Ron & Hermione did date for a time & realize how completely & utterly wrong they are for each other (the "greatest literary mismatch of all time" as Jim F put it recently) & break up amicably. and: >Ron's not my favorite character by any means, and I think he's absolutely, positively all wrong for Hermione. Dave responded with: <<>>> I definitely agree with this fully. Please qualify everything I'm about to say with this -- it's a subjective third-party determination and noone but the fictional characters of Harry, Ron and Hermione could say whether I'm right or wrong (*if* they could even say that themselves). Dave: <<>>> Somewhat correct. That is definitely part of it as far as I'm concerned. I just don't *understand* romantic relationships where the parties bicker as their primary (or even secondary) mode of communication. If bickering permeated my everyday life, I'd be quite unhappy. It's just not *my* style. So, when I see a relationship, like the current friendship between Ron & Hermione, that is characterized by incessant (and sometimes nasty) bickering, I can't even begin to fathom how they would turn that into a healthy long-term romantic relationship. I know, I know. "Opposites attract." "All that bickering equals passionate sparks." Yada, yada, yada. Yeah, right. But, their bickering is only *part* of my objection to R/H. More to come ... Dave said: <<<<<<<>> As do Harry and Hermione. :--) We're talking about 3 inter-connected friendships, so I do object to people who argue that Harry/Hermione have a "sibling" relationship but R/H don't. Please. They all have the same basic friendship at base, and it makes little sense to me to argue that one pairing is like a "sibling" relationship and therefore squicky in the romantic sense but the other isn't. This is not at all consistent & carries little weight with me. [I know Dave isn't arguing that point above ... it just came to mind as I was noting that H/H have the same deep relationship of shared experiences as R/H ...OR as Ha/R for that matter]. While I'm on this aspect, I'll also comment that I don't care for the comparisons of the "quality" of the friendships amongst the members of the Trio (such as "Harry cares for Ron more than Hermione" or "Ron has a closer relationship to Hermione than Harry does"). Ditto on people who try to objectively determine the "worth" of the time spent between 2 of the 3 friends (i.e., is the time spent between Ron & Hermione at the end of PS/SS worrying over Harry "more" meaningful than the time that Harry & Hermione spent together in GoF while Ron and Harry weren't speaking to each other). <<<<<<(As yet another parenthesis, am I missing something in the American usage of the term 'dating'? To my British ears it connotes two people who don't know each other very well, consciously trying out a closer, but still not very close, relationship. So there might be sex but very limited understanding. As I explain below, if H&R were to become romantically involved I think they would completely leapfrog this step.)>>>>> Whoa! To my American ear, this sounds like you're saying they'd move from platonic friends to sexual relations without anything at all intervening? A bit abrupt. Especially for teenagers. :--) Dating is more than just "getting to know each other" over here. Does "going out" make a difference to you? Hermione doesn't need to get to know either Harry or Ron, but I doubt that she'd jump into bed with either one of them without a few snogging sessions first. Dave: <<<<<<>>>>> Ah, now is the heart of the objection from my standpoint. Take social issues for example -- something more important than how homework is to be handled. Ron cannot understand Hermione's point of view on House Elves (or giants for that matter). But, it goes beyond "not understanding it." He harps on it and berates her for her position. He brings it up at every opportunity. I have the sense that he's trying to *win* an unspoken argument. I see them as having very fundamentally different outlooks. This isn't an impossible barrier to break through (look at James Carville/Mary Matalin). But, it's not an ordinary thing, and it extends to a fair number of subjects. They would have to learn to accord each other more respect than they are doing currently. Again, this isn't impossible. I just don't yet see the potential for this to work for the two of them. <<<<<<*However*, the fact that they engage in this power struggle is one of the main indicators to me that there is more to their relationship. Why doesn't Hermione just give up on Ron's attitude to homework? Why doesn't Ron accept Hermione's attachment to the library? Each of them wants to be responsible for the other in a way that, IMO, is uncharacteristic of friendship that is happy with the state it's at.>>>>>>> Eh, now I'm not so sure on *this* point. To use your homework example, Hermione is absolutely, positively just as "in your face argumentative" with Harry as she is with Ron. "You said you'd already worked out that egg clue!" said Hermione indignantly. Nah. She treats Harry no differently than Ron in this regard. Which brings me to: *she* is still a wildcard. Yes, Ron may be needling her because *he* has a crush on her that he's not really ready to acknowledge. But, I don't see much difference in the way that Hermione treats Ron from the way she treats Harry. She's *harder* on Harry in some respects. Nope, Dave, you'll have to try again on this one. :--) <<<>>>>>>> No, I don't think so. I think bickering is the defining characteristic of their relationship; it's how they interact. I don't think it's that there are no bickering couples on the planet, and that romantically-involved!R/H would suddenly be lovey-dovey and not bickering. I know there are plenty of bickering romantic partners (though I don't really know any of them personally I don't think). That isn't the issue. Ron & Hermione could have a romantic relationship (and a successful one), despite the bickering. But, they'll have to grapple with their fundamental differences of opinion on various subjects & come to grips with the fact that they may not be able to ever "convert" the other one to their way of thinking. On a more problematic level (for me), it's that I don't think they would each bring to the relationship what the other party *currently* needs. Right now (at age 14/15), what Ron *appears* to need is some arm-candy and/or someone who would build up his self-esteem. I think Ron would have a very hard time living in the shadow of his girlfriend's successes at this point in his life. We see that he *wants* to be the center of attention (the way he inflated the Second Task scenario for the admiration of girls). Hermione would be a tough girlfriend to have if you're a guy with a self-esteem issue. *Especially* if, as I believe, Hermione & Harry both continue to outpace Ron in terms of successes (I'm thinking here of Ron's desire to be told he has the makings of an auror ... but Moody didn't give him this boost). Hermione, OTOH, isn't *currently* going to be too willing to sublimate her own ambitions & successes to pacify an insecure boyfriend. We've talked before about whether she has a "thing" for "famous" guys. I don't think it's so much "famous" guys, but I can definitely see her wanting a guy who was successful (this is *not* a categorical statement that Ron isn't or hasn't been or never will be successful ... but he's *not* the same level of successful as Krum or Harry, not superficially IMO). I think she might need someone who is willing to let her be as successful as she can be (and wants to be), and I think Ron would feel incredibly frustrated in this role. And, I think she would end up feeling incredibly frustrated with Ron for this same reason. Now ... can this all change? Absolutely. These kids are teenagers. Everything I just said should be qualified with a huge "these are growing, maturing kids who are not yet fully-formed human beings." So, I'd probably also be disappointed if they ended up with their life-mates at age 15. So much happens to people between the ages of 15-25 (esp. between 20-30). I'd hate to think that the wizarding world operates in such a way that people are *expected* to find a life-mate by the time they finish up their studies at Hogwarts (or similar institution). I'd also like to comment briefly again about the love triangle business. Lexan seems to be mis-interpreting my theories. The love triangle theory that I'm most fond of does *not* (equivocally does *not*) involve Ron and Hermione dating & then breaking up, with H/H happening after this R/H breakup, in canon years. Perhaps I was not entirely clear. 1. FITD -- this theory holds that Ron likes Hermione, who likes Harry, who likes noone or someone outside the Trio (this could be Ginny! or Cho or a student we've not met yet ....or Moaning Myrtle!). So, you have the potential for all that great teenage hormonal stuff where there are raging hormones, miscommunications abounding, the potential for both humor OR drama OR both, depending on how JKR wanted to play it. This theory does not require that Ron be evil or dead. It does not mean that R/H would never, ever happen. Note especially that it does *not* preclude H/G. All it means is that in Book 5, Ron & Hermione wouldn't get together immediately. 2. I commented that, as an H/H shipper, I'd like nothing better than for R/H to date, break up amicably (realizing that they aren't right for each other). I stand by that. I don't need Ron to be dead or evil for H/H to eventually happen. All I need is a social system that doesn't pair people off for life at age 15. :--) But, this is not connected to the above love triangle. I'm not suggesting that in the canon R/H would date, break up, and then H/H would get together. I'm simply stating that if R/H date in canon, I'd prefer that they break up amicably (remaining friends) and go on about their adult lives (with H/H hooking up later ... as mature adults who've experienced life). I hope that's more clear. Penny From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sat May 11 14:31:26 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 14:31:26 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned Harry In-Reply-To: <001b01c1f897$5198c0c0$6401a8c0@barefoot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38664 The Beach Blanket party continues into the wee hours, Stoned!Harry smiling and nodding at his many guests, adding sherbert to the punchbowl, and dozing off only now and then. Just as the crowd begins to thin, a sharp-eyed newcomer arrives. A clear-headed, analytical newcomer who squints suspiciously at the cup Stoned!Harry presses into her hands. She introduces herself as Heidi. Heidi is not distracted by the mini-quiche, the stuffed mushrooms, or the loud music. Instead, she abruptly slams Stoned!Harry up against the nearest wall and begins a withering cross-examination. "If Harry is truly immortal," Heidi demands icily, "why would Dumbledore have to have set protective "old magic" over him so that when he is in the care of his relatives, he cannot be harmed?" Stoned!Harry raises his sunglasses and peers quizzically into Heidi's eyes, giving her his best "come hither" stare. She doesn't come hither. Stoned!Harry glances at George and Faith for help. They averts their eyes and move off together behind the greenhouses. "Unhand him!" cries a stranger, pulling Stoned!Harry from Heidi's firm grasp. "You see, Dumbledore needs 'old magic' to keep Harry safe even though he is immortal. Dumbledore is worried about a lot more than simply that Voldemort or other Dark Wizards will behead Harry. Stoned!Harry can be neutralized in other ways. For instance, if a Dark Wizard found Harry at the Dursleys, the Dark Wizard could bring a dementor to relieve Harry of his soul, for instance. An Immortal-But-Soulfree Harry would still be immortal -- just very, very useless. Dementors, lethifolds, being turned into a ferret and concealed as a pet in Moody's trunk -- Dumbledore is worried about all of these things!" Heidi pauses to consider this. She swirls the punch in the cup and licks her lips. Stoned!Harry's eyes dart to the last bowl of pretzels on the table. He licks his lips. Heidi turns to the stranger, her hands on her hips. "Why," she asks, "was Dumbledore concerned about Harry dying ("almost lost you") at the end of PS/SS with Quirrel/Voldemort?" The stranger raises an eyebrow, impressed with the intellectual horsepower and mastery of canon needed to probe Stoned!Harry in this fashion. She quickly lowers it. "Well, your question rests on the premise that Dumbledore was worried that Harry would die," she responds evenly. "Dumbledore could have been worried about something short of that. A never- ending coma, or perhaps that Voldemort had succeeded in sucking Harry's power out of him, for example. There's also the possiblity that Dumbledore isn't completely sure that everything has worked correctly and Stoned!Harry is really immortal. These spells are complex, you know. Dumbledore has already seen the Fidelius Charm plan backfire. Besides, we later learn that Dumbledore is the self- deprecating type, based on his statement that he may have botched the Age Line in GoF. He may have been consumed with self-doubt about whether he had succeeded in making Stoned!Harry immortal." Heidi considers. She swirls the punch cup and, as Stoned!Harry gives her a wan smile, she sips from it. Her eyes twinkle, then glaze over. Stoned!Harry watches Heidi wander to the punchbowl and refill her cup, adding a dollop of sherbert just for good measure. When Stoned!Harry turns back to the stranger, she is gone. Stoned! Harry shrugs and scoops the last bits of pretzel out of the bowl. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cindy For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% 20Files/hypotheticalley.\ htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From Edblanning at aol.com Sat May 11 18:04:00 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 14:04:00 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry Message-ID: <22.2878c53f.2a0eb710@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38665 Heidi: > (Stepping gingerly into the kayak, cringing that I may be rocking it...) > > 1. If Harry is truly immortal, why would Dumbledore have to have set > protective "old magic" over him so that when he is in the care of his > relatives, he cannot be harmed? > > 2. Why was Dumbledore concerned about Harry dying ("almost lost you") at > the end of PS/SS with Quirrel/Voldemort? > > I'm not entirely convinced about this theory, but am intrigued by all of > the symbolism and literary references. It's very fascinating...so, by all > means, don't stop! > Aah.....but here we have the difference between immortality and....err....immortality again. I suggested that there was a fundamental difference in the immortality sought by Voldemort (not dying bodily) and the spiritual immortality that Harry may ultimately embrace by voluntarily giving up his life. Alternatively, it may be that Harry will be resurrected or apparently be resurrected. At any rate, Stoned!Harry proposes (I think!) that Harry has to *give* his life in order to embrace immortality. It's a paradox (a paradox, a most ingenious paradox - Cue for a song, Marina.) Harry clearly has work to do. He has a Destiny. With a big D. Dumbledore knows that and knows that the time must be right for him to embrace that destiny. He already has some protection; that ensured that Voldemort's curse reflected back on himself, not Harry (a prefiguring, perhaps of that destiny?), but even that isn't enough. Harry needs to be protected *bodily* in order to die *at the right time*. Oh, and don't worry about the kayak, we've taken over the Big Bang. It has so many ca(n)nons that its stability is suspect, it's true, but if we position yours carefully, we should be OK. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Sat May 11 18:23:19 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 14:23:19 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stoned!Harry Message-ID: <18a.7c6191f.2a0ebb97@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38666 L. Terrell Gould, III: > Ok, ok. I know. I know! Enough religious iconography already, but, > here's one more I plucked from nowhere when reading cj's post. > Temptation? Like in the last temptation of Christ? In the wilderness, > before the betrayal and his crucifixion? > Sorry, should have added this to the last post. Christ's temptation happened at the *outset* of his ministry, just after his baptism (Second Task?) and at the start of his last *three* years on earth. Which means Stoned!Harry is due for some inducements to join the Dark side about now, by my reckoning. ('The Last Temptation' is the title of a book by Kazantzakis, if I've spelled that right, turned into a film which was condemned as blasphemous in some quarters. I think perhaps you're conflating this with the Agony in the Garden, when Christ asked to be spared his fate.) Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From margdean at erols.com Sat May 11 18:44:50 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 14:44:50 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry References: <001b01c1f897$5198c0c0$6401a8c0@barefoot> Message-ID: <3CDD66A2.D0E1F82A@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38667 Heidi Rugg wrote: > > I've been reading the Stoned!Harry theory with great interest, but am left pondering a few questions... > > (Stepping gingerly into the kayak, cringing that I may be rocking it...) > > 1. If Harry is truly immortal, why would Dumbledore have to have set > protective "old magic" over him so that when he is in the care of his ? relatives, he cannot be harmed? > > 2. Why was Dumbledore concerned about Harry dying ("almost lost you") > at the end of PS/SS with Quirrel/Voldemort? Immortality (at least for some values of "immortal") doesn't necessarily mean a person can't be killed. Witness Tolkien's elves, who don't die of old age or disease but are just as vulnerable as humans are to sword, fire, drowning, falling off cliffs, etc. --Margaret Dean From m.bockermann at t-online.de Sat May 11 19:19:44 2002 From: m.bockermann at t-online.de (m.bockermann at t-online.de) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 21:19:44 +0200 Subject: A theory... One variable that would change Harry for the worst.... References: <1021101845.857.54142.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <003801c1f921$06837500$1efa9b3e@i7p8l9> No: HPFGUIDX 38668 Hi Moirae! Hi everybody! Moire wrote: >>>In Philosopher's Stone, Draco offered his hand to Harry but Harry rejected it. And then the sorting hat WANTED to put him in Slytherin. My theory is that if Harry had ACCEPTED Draco's hand, he wouldn't have minded to be put into Slytherin. It was because of Draco that Harry didn't want to be put into Slytherin. Well, WHAT IF Harry did shake Draco's hand? I believe that that variable is what determines Harry's future... In good/evil, Gryffindor/Slytherin and life/death. Think about it... Draco said that he'd help Harry see which Wizarding families are better... Clearly Harry Potter was one of the better. It was because Harry rejected Draco that they have the rivalry. The Sorting Hat said that Harry would be great in Slytherin, and like I said before, Harry probably would have went into Slytherin if it wasn't for Draco. Finally! Somebody else who considers it important that Draco offered Harry his friendship. :-)))) Not only once, but twice: in the dressing shop and on the Hogwarts express. Obviously, the importance of the fact was even important enough that it was included - it a rewritten form - in the movie. Even later, when Draco picks on Ron's poverty and Hermione's ancestry he is *counselling* Harry to choose his friends more carefully. For example: the first time we hear "mudblood" in CoS. Draco has been trying to befriend Harry in his own, twisted way. And it is only due to Harry's personality that he rejected Draco - and Slytherin. Like you, I'm convinced that Harry would have sailed to Slytherin if he hadn't convinced the hat otherwise. And he only rejected Slytherin because of the things Hagrid and Ron have told him and the way Draco acted in the dressing shop. I'm not sure however, what the reason is for Draco's interest in Harry. Like you, I assume it is his family. Which is *very* weird, considering Harry is (supposedly?) a "half-blood". In the real world, "half-bloods" (yes, I hate that word, too) often have to struggle with prejudices. The way Draco treats "mudbloods" one woud suppose he hates their descendants as well. But even though Draco insults Ron and Hermione again and again because of their family/blood, he never ever criticises Harry this way. Why? IMHO, there are two explanations: 1) Harry's mother is not a mudblood after all, something Draco knows because of his father. And before you hit me people, I know the likelyhood for this is small, to say the least. Come to think of unlikely things: is the child of two "squibs" or a squib and a muggle a mudblood? If Lily came from a family where the magical talent skipped a generation or two, she could be a "mudblood" and have some interesting magical family secrets. 2) Lily is a mudblood, but the Potters were so high in the magical hirachy that the "taint" (from the point of the Malfoys and the DEs) of Lily's heritage doesn't matter. Which might explain a certain dungeon cell full of gold. Either way, there are bound to be some relevations in HP 5, 6 and/or 7. (Now I'm saying something new, am I not ;-) ) >>>On another not, the wand... Voldie's and Harry's wands are brothers. Why would that wand pick Harry? Dumbledore said himself that Harry has some of Voldie in him. Yes, and I'm going to bite into the table if it is just "rubbed" off Voldie because of the failed AK. And it doesn't explain of course why Voldie wanted to kill Harry in the first place. I believe DD is still holding something back, and it must be bad if he still can't tell it a fourteen year old. I'm sure that Draco could tell Harry *a lot* about his familiy's past. And he would have - if Harry had not turned down his friendship. I can really see Draco telling Harry in a venomenous tone some of the things he doesn't know yet. Harry already had some disillusionment through Snape in that regard (telling him about the "Prank") and I would be surprised if Draco revealed the next installment. >>>On a hilarious note... think about what the canon would be like if Draco and Harry were a team... *shudders*... LOL. I don't believe that Harry would end his friendship with Ron and Hermione in favour of a friendship with Draco. Except in the realm of fanfiction, where it should create some really interesting stories. Greetings, Ethanol (taking on this nickname, because there are too many Barbaras here for simply Barbara and my full name (Barbara Jebenstreit) is too long. And I remember somebody on the list complaining about it, saying I "was just asking" for a nick. So here we are) From lupinesque at yahoo.com Sat May 11 19:48:46 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 19:48:46 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Ron - bickering In-Reply-To: <00a201c1f8e6$ca3b3950$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38669 Penny wrote: > I > just don't *understand* romantic relationships where the parties bicker as > their primary (or even secondary) mode of communication. If bickering > permeated my everyday life, I'd be quite unhappy. It's just not *my* style. > So, when I see a relationship, like the current friendship between Ron & > Hermione, that is characterized by incessant (and sometimes nasty) > bickering, I can't even begin to fathom how they would turn that into a > healthy long-term romantic relationship. I know this is only a small part of your objection to R/H, but I'm just going to address this bit (and it is on-topic, despite the roundabout way it gets there). As you say, this kind of relationship isn't *your* style. It isn't particularly mine, either. But so what? You and I are not members of the couple in question. *Our* style tells us nothing about the happiness of other people. *I* don't think I'd be happy in a romantic relationship with someone who had radically different artistic or religious views than I do, but it's obvious that many people get along fine with just these differences between them. Likewise, as I look around at the couples I know, some relationships that are characterized by frequent (I won't say incessant, as I don't believe that's defensible by canon) bickering *are* healthy, long-term romantic relationships. I see them; I see that the people stay together for decades; I see that they profess to be happy. People have different styles and priorities, and make different sorts of compromises in their relationships. What is an intolerable situation to some is a reasonable compromise to others. >I know, I know. "Opposites > attract." "All that bickering equals passionate sparks." Yada, yada, yada. > Yeah, right. Well, maybe. I don't think bickering *equals* passionate sparks. I do think couples who bicker may *also* have passionate sparks. And in the case of teenagers and others who have trouble articulating and understanding their own feelings, passionate feelings often express themselves outwardly in bickering, withdrawal, hyper-clinginess, and other not-too-healthy forms. All of which is to say that I don't see Ron and Hermione's bickering as a sign that they would or would not make a good couple. I wrote up a whole list of ways they interact *besides* bickering, but I haven't typed it up yet. One of these days. Amy From siskiou at earthlink.net Sat May 11 20:34:14 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 13:34:14 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] SHIP Re: Hermione and Ron - bickering In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <84579770826.20020511133414@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38670 Hi, Saturday, May 11, 2002, 12:48:46 PM, lupinesque wrote: > *I* don't think I'd be happy in a romantic > relationship with someone who had radically different artistic or > religious views than I do, but it's obvious that many people get along > fine with just these differences between them. Thanks! My husband and I have been married for 12 years, and yes, we do engage in spirited discussions on a regular basis. We also have "romantic" times :) But I think we truly would be bored if we agreed on everything all the time. I mean, it would be like: Yes, honey, you are absolutely right. End of talk. Well that's exaggerating, but I just can't imagine not having those interesting talks once in a while ;) It's, um..., fun :) Just like list discussions, where some members get upset and feel attacked while other members are having are a good time and are truly baffled at what made the others feel hurt. While I'm not into shipping, I could see the same being the case with Ron and Hermione. They might actually enjoy sharpening their "discussing" skills. while Harry is obviously not into this at all. He may disagree or not be interested, but he doesn't usually say so out loud, at least when it comes to Hermione and Ron. BTW, this not only goes for the "bickering" but also for having different opinions concerning some subjects. I don't see Hermione and Ron having such fundamentally different outlooks on most important issues. Most of them, I think, have to do with Ron being from a wizard family and having never been introduced to some subjects, and Hermione being from a muggle family. I could see them work together well on those issues, once they combine Ron's realism with Hermione's social conscience. I mean, I don't see Harry getting all enthusiastic about the house elf issue, either. Anyway, they *are* very young and I really don't want to see them in an established relationship at the end of book 7. That way, all the shippers can just keep thinking that *their* ship is the only true and right one :) -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From mike_wiltse at yahoo.com Sat May 11 18:45:39 2002 From: mike_wiltse at yahoo.com (mike_wiltse) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 18:45:39 -0000 Subject: A theory... One variable that would change Harry for the worst.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38671 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sailor_moirae" wrote: > In Philosopher's Stone, Draco offered his hand to Harry but Harry rejected it. And then the sorting hat WANTED to put him in Slytherin. Moirae < I disagree with that statment. Harry said "Not Slytherin" and the sorting hat asked him if he was sure. The hat didnt say "I want to put you in Slytherin, how do you feel about that?" The real question should be "If Harry had wanted to go into Slytherin, would the sorting hat have let him?" And we really do not know enough about the sorting hat to answer that. There are plenty of threads about the sorting hat in here. I will dig up the canon when I get home. Mike From petra.delisser at saunalahti.fi Sat May 11 20:46:35 2002 From: petra.delisser at saunalahti.fi (brinforest) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 20:46:35 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stoned!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38672 Ahoy there... a lurker by the name of Brin approaches the Beach Blanket Party with her finger in the air. "'Scuse me", she calls out. "Just had to put in a comment that nobody seems to have thought of... I guess... I didn't bring any can(n)ons, because you seem to have a more than ample supply already... hope you don't mind..." --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > "Why do you think Dumbledore created Tom in the first place, if that's > what he did? Do you think it had anything to do with defeating > Grindelwald in 1945?" > Now what if Tom was created by Grindelwald? If Grindelwald is a Hitler allegory, wouldn't it be interesting for him to have left a nasty surprise behind... a child who, even with Grindelwald gone, grows up putting purity of blood above everything else - and becomes the most powerful Dark Wizard ever? Symbolic possibilities, mmm? And when it comes to Dumbledore "creating" Harry, or enhancing the unborn or newborn Harry or whatever.. I don't like this idea very much. I would prefer it if Dumbledore was just *aware* of all these significant, ahem, alleged features that would abound in Lily and James's child (whose birth, even if destined, was the result of love and not a science experiment), and has always acted according to some subtle knowledge or instinct of how to protect and guide Harry without actually "running his life", or perhaps preventing his fate, if you like. This way, Dumbledore would not have practised any high- risk and morally suspicious baby engineering himself. I just *feel* (at least so far, lol) that actively creating or enhancing a baby, even with the motive of ridding the world of evil, is not Dumbledore's thing. But I realise, of course, what interesting moral issues it would offer, too - Dumbledore having to face Harry, the actual flesh-and- blood boy, a child, complete with soul and feelings, and always know what that child is destined for. What he was *made* for. Oh well, got to be off now... thanks for the quiche, is there a recipe for that somewhere..? Brin From catlady at wicca.net Sat May 11 22:22:04 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 22:22:04 -0000 Subject: Krum / romance /Half-bloods / Slytherin House / Grindelwald Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38673 Aldrea wrote: > I liked Krum also, but I don't see how he can be in the books again > unless he transfers to Hogwarts(perhaps to be closer to Hermione?) At the QWC, Ron said that Krum was only 18. If he were a normal Hogwarts student, he would have just finished school rather than having another year to go. It is possible that Durmstrang students are a different age than Hogwarts students, but I prefer to believe that Krum made an arrangement to go to school half-time, spending two years for his seventh year, in order to have time to play Quidditch with the National Team. So he should finish school at the end of GoF. So he would be free to come to Hogwarts as some kind of hanger-on (assistant flying teacher, foreign language tutor, independent researcher in the library) in order to join Dumbledore's team against the Dark Side. Or if he joined a British pro Quidditch team, he could live in Hogsmeade, maybe rent a room from a family there or at the Three Broomsticks. > I wonder if wizards celebrate Valentine's Day? Gilderoy Lockhart made a Big Deal of it, with ugly dwarves in silly costumes delivering Valentine cards. Penny wrote: > Hermione, OTOH, isn't *currently* going to be too willing to > sublimate her own ambitions & successes to pacify an insecure > boyfriend. Yes, that's why I like Hermione/Viktor, even tho' I don't think JKR is going to make it happen. Ethanol Barbara wrote: > In the real world, "half-bloods" (yes, I hate that word, too) often > have to struggle with prejudices. The way Draco treats "mudbloods" > one woud suppose he hates their descendants as well. I very much get the impression that the wizarding bigots DON'T hate Half-bloods. Tom Marvolo Riddle was a Half-blood to the point where CoS had the working title of HP and the Halfblood Prince. Presumably the way that USAmerican white supremacists may be proud of happening to be descended from Mayflower colonists, but don't hate other white native-born Americans for not having as long an American ancestry. Maybe the cost for a Half-blood being accepted by the bigots is they have to diss their Muggle parent. Mike Wiltse wrote: > The real question should be "If Harry had wanted to go into > Slytherin, would the sorting hat have let him?" If Harry had wanted to go into Slytherin when all he knew was that the Song said that Slytherins are ambitious, and the hat told him that being in Slytherin would help him become great, he would have been a different person than the Harry we know, the one who would rather have a normal life and not be fussed over than be a hero. Brin wrote: > Now what if Tom was created by Grindelwald? Ooo-hoo! We don't know that Grindelwald was German or European just because of his name; he COULD have been English. We don't know Grindelwald's first name and I believe we don't know Tom's mother's last name (I believe that naming her son Marvolo after her father means it was his first name, not the family surname.) So what if Grindelwald knew by his dark magic that the baby he planned to create had to be fathered by Muggle Tom Riddle Sr, so he cast an Imperius-type Love Spell on his own daughter to make her fall desperately in love with that git? I have this suspicion that maybe Salazar Slytherin was also hungry for immortality, so that he also made himself so immortal that losing his body didn't kill him, but he had to hang around as a mist much longer than 13 years ... he had to hang around as a mist until he was able to possess the body of baby Tom Marvolo Riddle, too young to have developed values and preferences of his own (beyond crying for milk and fear of falling). So that Voldemort is a re-incarnation of Slytherin in a way that Grindelwald was not. From usergoogol at yahoo.com Sun May 12 01:28:02 2002 From: usergoogol at yahoo.com (usergoogol) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 01:28:02 -0000 Subject: Valentines Day (Short) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38674 ---aldrea279--- Oh, a thought just came to me- I wonder if wizards celebrate Valentine's Day? I don't think they've mentioned this holiday yet in the books... --------------- They sure have. Don't you remember? Uh... book two, and it was Lockheart's idea to have a bit of the decor set up. I believe there were realish cupids hanging around too. Actually, if I remember correctly, someone (probably still anonymous) gave Harry an embarrassing valentine which might have been a matter of debate before. Something about how his eyes were the color of pickled frogs and whatnot. I'm not going to try to find the page, so I'll just telly ou to do it. ~User "Slowly coming out of the Lurky shadows" Googol~ From chetah27 at hotmail.com Sun May 12 04:27:17 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 04:27:17 -0000 Subject: A theory... One variable that would change Harry for the worst.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38675 Mike: > I disagree with that statment. Harry said "Not Slytherin" and the > sorting hat asked him if he was sure. The hat didnt say "I want to > put you in Slytherin, how do you feel about that?" > > The real question should be "If Harry had wanted to go into > Slytherin, would the sorting hat have let him?" And we really do not > know enough about the sorting hat to answer that. There are plenty > of threads about the sorting hat in here. I will dig up the canon > when I get home. Yes, I agree with this. The Sorting Hat seems to be quite tricky. IF Harry had befriended Draco, and IF he hadn't been so against Slytherin, do you think the Sorting Hat would have(perhaps teasingly/cunningly) said You'd do great in Slytherin...? I don't. I think it said that because it saw that Harry was rather warry of Slytherin, so it asked him for his reaction. I wish it'd show what the Sorting Hat said to the others... Ethanol: Like you, I'm convinced that Harry would have sailed to Slytherin if he hadn't convinced the hat otherwise. And he only rejected Slytherin because of the things Hagrid and Ron have told him and the way Draco acted in the dressing shop. I don't think the Hat puts you where you WANT to go, it puts you where you belong. Ooh...I just had a thought. Perhaps the Hat saw that Harry himself was slightly torn about his choices? (Gryffindor/Slytherin, good/evil, Harry doesn't seem to be that great of a decision maker) I guess a question was in order to figure it all out. I don't know, the Hat puts you into a house you will be in for SEVEN years...I think it has to be a rather wise hat, because people can change alot in seven years. I guess it saw the conflict that would occur between Draco and Harry... I wonder what all the hat looks at while it's on your head? It can obviously read your thoughts, but perhaps it can look at memories and such? *shrugs* And perhaps the ONLY reason the hat even considered putting Harry in Slytherin is because of that lil streak of Voldemort that Harry has in him... And I don't think he'd have sailed into Slytherin, Harry just seems perfect for Gryffindor, if you ask me. From chetah27 at hotmail.com Sun May 12 04:40:29 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 04:40:29 -0000 Subject: Valentines Day (Short) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38676 Yeah...I remembered the Lockhart thing right after I posted. Agh, I wish there were an editing button. *sighs* No more posts late at night. I thought it was Ginny Weasely that sent the Valentine? Didn't she turn all red or something and run away when she saw the way Harry reacted to his card? Hmm... *decides to actually check this time* Well... Malfoy shouts "I don't think Potter liked your valentine much!" And then she runs off all embarassed. "aldrea 279" From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sun May 12 12:50:18 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 12:50:18 -0000 Subject: Rules / Ghosts & Poltergeist / 1945 / Harry the Slytherin / In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38677 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > David Frankis wrote: > > "Why do you think Dumbledore created Tom in the first place, if > > that's what he did? Do you think it had anything to do with > > defeating Grindelwald in 1945?" > > http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon/timeline_main.html > Sometimes I think some of the years in Steve's timeline are a year > early or a year late, but mostly I agree with them. Tom Marvolo > Riddle born 1926, finished school of Hogwarts in June 1945... > I don't see cannon for Dumbledore "creating" either tom or Harry. OTOH, We only know Dumbledore "defeated" Grindelwald. Did Grinelwald die? What did Dumbledore do with the body? We don't really know. The lexicon has Dumbledore finishing Grindelwald in 1945, the last year Tom Riddle is at Hogwarts. So, did Grindelwald do a Quirrel move on Tom? I sort of suspect this. Then I'd like to ask, what did Dumbledore know and when did he know it, about tom and Grindelwald? Tex From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun May 12 12:59:13 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 12:59:13 -0000 Subject: Valentines Day (Short) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38678 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "aldrea279" wrote: > Yeah...I remembered the Lockhart thing right after I posted. Agh, I > wish there were an editing button. *sighs* No more posts late at > night. > > I thought it was Ginny Weasely that sent the Valentine? Didn't she > turn all red or something and run away when she saw the way Harry > reacted to his card? Hmm... *decides to actually check this time* > Well... Malfoy shouts "I don't think Potter liked your valentine > much!" And then she runs off all embarassed. > > > "aldrea 279" Many people (especially H/G shippers) have argued against the supposed authorical evidence of that Valentine. The context of the scene is that, after the ridicule poem, Harry's bag broke and most things fell out - including Riddle's diary. Ginny starts to act strange *after* seing the diary, but (in a very JKR sort of way), disguised as if she had been embarrased by Harry's reaction. So, it was in fact a clue of who was responsible for the vandalic acts, not what it looked like at first glance. She stays, freezed, for a while, and -probably without listening to the words- unfreezes when someone talks to her (the fact taht the lucky one happened to be Draco would be, once again, missdirection). In a less metatext way, another possible argument is that Ginny's sensibilities and intelligence would have to be quite low to write such a poem, and -even though she's just 11 years old- you'd expect her to know a flattering comparison from an insulting one. I defend this theory, and offer an alternative author: Lockhart, in his unending plan to reduce Harry's fame and thus elevate his own. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From blpurdom at yahoo.com Sun May 12 13:09:35 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 13:09:35 -0000 Subject: A theory... One variable that would change Harry for the worst.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38679 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "aldrea279" wrote: > Mike: > Yes, I agree with this. The Sorting Hat seems to be quite > tricky. IF Harry had befriended Draco, and IF he hadn't been so > against Slytherin, do you think the Sorting Hat would have(perhaps > teasingly/cunningly) said You'd do great in Slytherin...? I > don't. I think it said that because it saw that Harry was rather > warry of Slytherin, so it asked him for his reaction. I wish it'd > show what the Sorting Hat said to the others... I think the Sorting Hat normally finds people a pretty easy read, but Harry has himself and some of Voldemort in him, and so the hat gave him something like a "test." One of the attributes of a Slytherin is ambition--not evil in and of itself. Harry clearly has a certain amount of ambition. Whether he comes by this naturally (his mum and dad were Head Girl and Boy, after all) or because of Voldemort is debatable. When the hat tells him he could be great in Slytherin, I think it is truly waiting to hear his reaction. If he had said, "Really? How great? Would I eventually be greater than Dumbledore?" the hat would have seen that ambition was a very large part of his personality; Harry did not do that, however, and the hat knew that however much ambition Harry had, it was not overwhelming and he had attributes that required him to be elsewhere. > Ethanol: > I don't think the Hat puts you where you WANT to go, it puts you > where you belong. Ooh...I just had a thought. Perhaps the Hat > saw that Harry himself was slightly torn about his choices? > (Gryffindor/Slytherin, good/evil, Harry doesn't seem to be that > great of a decision maker) I guess a question was in order to > figure it all out. I don't know, the Hat puts you into a house you > will be in for SEVEN years...I think it has to be a rather wise > hat, because people can change alot in seven years. I guess it > saw the conflict that would occur between Draco and Harry... I > wonder what all the hat looks at while it's on your head? It can > obviously read your thoughts, but perhaps it can look at memories > and such? *shrugs* And perhaps the ONLY reason the hat even > considered putting Harry in Slytherin is because of that lil > streak of Voldemort that Harry has in him... And I don't think > he'd have sailed into Slytherin, Harry just seems perfect for > Gryffindor, if you ask me. I doubt the hat saw the conflict that WOULD occur between Draco and Harry. After all, does the hat have the Sight or is it just good at doing a kind of personality test? I doubt that the hat is able to see the future. It would be the Divination teacher if that were true. (Hey, a ghost teaches one of the classes, why not a hat?) --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From Edblanning at aol.com Sun May 12 13:39:42 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 09:39:42 EDT Subject: TBAY Stoned!Harry Message-ID: <157.dcf0981.2a0fca9e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38680 It's a balmy day in Theory Bay where the Big Bang destroyer sits at anchor. There being hardly a swell, Eloise (who suffers from sea-sickness) feels it's safe to roll out a steamer chair and has just setled down with a good book when she becomes aware of a sudden flurry of activity on deck. The crew are suddenly engaged in furious activity, swabbing the deck, polishing portholes, burnishing the cannons. The other passengers all suddenly seem to remember other things they have to do and disappear. The reason for all this activity soon becomes apparent: striding purposefully along the deck comes Captain Cindy, bearing a roll of parchment and a large paddle, symbol of her Toughness. She's muttering under her breath. Eloise can't quite catch what she's saying, mu.......mutton, is it? How kind, thinks Eloise. Beneath that Tough exterior, Cindy's really a sweetie. That parchment must be the lunch menu. Fancy the Captain bringing it round herself. Eloise looks up, innocently. "Hello, Cindy." Cindy fixes her with an intent gaze. Eloise isn't sure that it's friendly. Cindy finally articulates clearly what she's been muttering under her breath. It isn't anything to do with lunch. "Mutiny? Me? Look, it wasn't my idea to move the Snapetheories out. I might have helped a bit, but you can't honestly ........I mean.... I thought you'd cut a deal with Dicentra....didn't you?" Captain Cindy, it appears, has been on one of her periodic cabin inspections. She unrolls the parchment. "Look", she says, with an unpleasant gleam in her eye, "Proof!" Eloise takes the parchment, which does indeed contain an unfortunate reference to 'taking over' the Big Bang. It is unquestionably in Eloise's handwriting. She was even careless enough to sign it. "Oh.......," falters Eloise. "But I didn't mean......" Cindy clearly isn't impressed by this show of eloquence and starts to finger the paddle impatiently. Perhaps it isn't a symbol, after all. "This is *MY* ship...." thunders Cindy, coming still closer. Eloise clambers backwards of the steamer chair and begins to back towards the rail. "Of course it is, Cindy...err...Captain." Cindy is eying the kayak tied up along side meaningfully. Eloise gets the message and dives overboard. Never a strong swimmer, she goes under and swallows large quantities of sea water. Surfacing for the third time and flailing about uncontrollably, Eloise is afraid she is about to meet her maker, when suddenly a figure comes strolling nonchalantly across the water. "Hello," he says, "Guess who?" Stoned!Harry hooks Eloise out of the water and into the kayak. She takes the paddles and rows furiously to the other side of the Bay, where she is helping Diana to move into a small, tasteful gothic castle with sea views. All that roaming from ship to ship carrying her cannons was getting too much for her. And the champagne kept spilling. Eloise who has realised that she did indeed carelessly post those incriminating words doesn't want to lead others astray. Are we really still squashed in that kayak, or have we been welcomed aboard? I'm a little unclear. ****************************************** For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hypotheticalle y.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=13 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From katgirl at lava.net Sun May 12 13:56:24 2002 From: katgirl at lava.net (booklovinggirl) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 13:56:24 -0000 Subject: Ron's parallel (Was: Re: Ron splitting with Harry and Hermione) In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020510051829.009e8ba0@mail.madnessmansion.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38681 Jarrod: >I like this theory, "Actually, wouldn't the most accurate parallel for Ron, as a potential bad guy, be Sirius? Ron may do something wrong, but usually he is a good kid just screwing around, I don't think he would intentionally hurt someone, well maybe Malfoy, but that is something totally different.< YES! Thank-you. When did people start believing that Ron = Pettigrew? It disturbs me. Very deeply. Ron isn't an evil person at all; he's not a saint, but neither is anyone else. You can argue that Wormtail was a good friend and decent person before a certain point, and I'll have to agree with you, but I just cannot see Ron as anyone except for Sirius. Two reasons why: Point 1: He's Harry's best friend. The Marauder Parallel ideas, in all the places/forms I've seen them in, show Harry as James. It's so simple that you almost doubt it. The easiest way of saying that Ron = Sirius is to point out that they are Harry and James's best friends. Point 2: He's Malfoy's worst enemy. Here we reach the second most moronically easy Marauder Parallel. Draco Malfoy and Severus Snape. It works; they're both Slytherins; they both take on grudges against pureblooded Gryffindors who are parallel's, and if we go for Sirius is Ron, it works on yet another level. Malfoy and Harry are rivals; I can't say that they're total enemies. We don't know enough about Snape and James, but I'd be willing to say the same. Sirius and Snape, Ron and Malfoy...they're something else altogether. I don't think Sirius ever meant to try to kill Snape. At very worst he might have been hoping Snape would be bitten. I don't think that's what was on his mind when he told Snape the way into the Willow, but *at worst* he might have fantasized about it. But, what I hold more important, is the fact that James was the one who went after Snape. This, next to Wormtail's Betrayal, is the most important plot development in Marauder times that we know of. It sets up most of the hostile feelings between Snape, Sirius, and Remus, it sets up the ever-important live-debt, it certainly helps set up Snape's entrance in PoA; I don't think the way into the Shack was just distributed to all of the staff and teachers. It's possible, yeah, but not that likely, IMHO. Anyway. It also illustrates just how much Sirius must have hated Snape to not go after him. The Prank was not the beginning. It's simply an event that sticks out in particular. I think that Ron and Malfoy hate one another more than Malfoy and Harry. Malfoy fears poverty, and this is not entirely his fault- had I been raised the way he was, I probably would fear poverty to unreasonable extents as well. Ron, meanwhile, hates Malroy's slurs on his family and on muggle-borns-really all because of their upbringing. If you just tweaked a few details on their backgrounds, the right details, they could easily become the best of friends. But it's really too late, isn't it? If Dumbledore's going to get Slytherins on his side, he's going to have to move quickly. Anyway, on a side mention, that I'll throw in here as a bonus, has anyone else noticed a pattern on how Harry faced the climax of each book? In SS, he went through the challenges with Ron and Hermione, for the most part. In CoS he went down into the Chamber with Ron. In PoA, he traveled using the Time Turner with Hermione. In GoF, he was essentially alone. Do you see any significance? -Katherine From foxmoth at qnet.com Sun May 12 16:59:42 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 16:59:42 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Ron (SHIP) In-Reply-To: <00a201c1f8e6$ca3b3950$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38682 > Penny wrote: > >It'd be great actually if Ron & Hermione did date for a time & > realize how completely & utterly wrong they are for each other > (the "greatest literary mismatch of all time" as Jim F put it > recently) & break up amicably. > > and: > > >Ron's not my favorite character by any means, and I think he's > absolutely, positively all wrong for Hermione. > and: > Hermione, OTOH, isn't *currently* going to be too willing to >sublimate her > own ambitions & successes to pacify an insecure boyfriend. The trouble with this is that it makes an much better argument against H/H. Are you really saying that Ron has more emotional problems than Harry? Harry, who can't remember what it's like to be hugged, who has recurring nightmares, whose worst fears are powerful enough to incapacitate him? Ron's problems are all on the surface. Harry's are buried deep down. It's going to take more than a couple of walks around the lake to bring Harry out of his emotional lockdown and realistically he'd always be at risk of retreating into it again. It's true that *currently* he doesn't make emotional demands on his friends, but he doesn't have much support to offer them either. I'm not saying that Hermione doesn't have the resources to cope with Harry's emotional void, but is she willing to "sublimate her own ambitions and successes" to do it? Would Harry even want her to? Pippin From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sun May 12 17:16:52 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 17:16:52 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Hermione and Ron In-Reply-To: <00a201c1f8e6$ca3b3950$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38683 Penny wrote: > We're talking about 3 inter-connected friendships, so I do object to people > who argue that Harry/Hermione have a "sibling" relationship but R/H don't. Me too, and vice versa. > > While I'm on this aspect, I'll also comment that I don't care for the > comparisons of the "quality" of the friendships amongst the members of the > Trio (such as "Harry cares for Ron more than Hermione" or "Ron has a closer > relationship to Hermione than Harry does"). Me too (I could legally stop here, as this would be a two-liner 'me too' post). > <<<<<<(As yet another parenthesis, am I missing something in the > American usage of the term 'dating'? > > Whoa! To my American ear, this sounds like you're saying they'd move from > platonic friends to sexual relations without anything at all intervening? A > bit abrupt. Especially for teenagers. :--) Yes, that is abrupt, as applied to HRH (their royal Hogwartnesses?). I meant in general. I confess that I have difficulty thinking myself into their relationships as I had no close relationships, whether romantic or no, at that age. So I tend to think how I would react as if I were the age I am now (44), in the light of their circumstances, which is doubtless different. What I was trying to say was that I find the idea of any of the Hs or R suggesting a quiet (?) 'date' as a means to furthering the relationship. The point being that all three relationships are already in some ways well beyond anything that either teenagers or adults experience. And the other half of my overall point being that the relationships in other ways are very primitive (if that's the right word), so we can't apply conventional thinking about the way relationships develop. I would say that one of the biggest weaknesses that runs throught he shipping debates is the convention that we have platonic (including 'sibling') relationships on one hand and romantic or sexual ones on the other, with very little in common between the two. I prefer to try to think without using these categories at all (while to an extent being forced by the English language to express my ideas in them), which is why I find it hard to know whether to prefix posts about the developing relationships within the trio with the word 'SHIP', since I don't believe there is a line to be drawn. > > Dating is more than just "getting to know each other" over here. Does > "going out" make a difference to you? Hermione doesn't need to get to know > either Harry or Ron, but I doubt that she'd jump into bed with either one of > them without a few snogging sessions first. Agreed. "Going out" is closer but would still sound a little quaint to me. In fact, while I don't want to go too far down the line of speculating the actual possible development of an H/R ship, it could be the reverse of jumping into bed - possibly an agreement that they have unfinished business that they want to pick up when they are ready, which would modulate all their other relationships > > I have the sense that he's trying to *win* an unspoken > argument. Agreed - that's what I was trying to say. > I see them as having very fundamentally different outlooks. Less sure about this. I think Ron may simply fail to realise that what he believes intellectually about elves, giants etc. contradicts what is in practice his positive and open outlook (as I see it) towards other individuals. He is partially aware of it over Hagrid. If he does relaise it he could move a lot closer to Hermione's position on those issues. (As an aside, where *do* the Weasleys get their prejudices from? I think Molly.) > No, I don't think so. I think bickering is the defining characteristic of > their relationship; it's how they interact. Now here we have a straight difference over what is written in canon. I see plenty of bickering, but 'defining characteristic' - not me. We need Amy's list. > Ron & Hermione could > have a romantic relationship (and a successful one), despite the bickering. > But, they'll have to grapple with their fundamental differences of opinion > on various subjects & come to grips with the fact that they may not be able > to ever "convert" the other one to their way of thinking. Agreed. I have to go set the table for supper now, or bickering will be *our* defining characteristic at home. I will try to deal with the outstanding issue of whether Hermione treats Harry the same as Ron over issues where they disagree another time David From pennylin at swbell.net Sun May 12 18:51:54 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 13:51:54 -0500 Subject: Hermione and Ron (SHIP) References: Message-ID: <01e401c1f9e6$15bc97c0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38684 Hi -- I argued, in part, against a R/H ship: > Hermione, OTOH, isn't *currently* going to be too willing to >sublimate her > own ambitions & successes to pacify an insecure boyfriend. Pippin responded: The trouble with this is that it makes an much better argument against H/H. Are you really saying that Ron has more emotional problems than Harry? Harry, who can't remember what it's like to be hugged, who has recurring nightmares, whose worst fears are powerful enough to incapacitate him?>>>> No. I think we're talking about two separate issues (at least) here. You're right Pippin that Harry is emotionally fragile and may not have the capacity to engage in a romantic relationship at all (for a long time or even ever) -- with Hermione or Ginny or Cho or anyone. He has no memories of intimacy and no good models for successful intimate relationships. He's not helped in this respect at Hogwarts other than through his observations of Arthur & Molly Weasley. None of the other professors are married (as far as we the readers know), and his father's two best friends are also apparently without a significant romantic relationship at this time. But, his emotional fragility is an entirely separate issue from his insecurities. Harry is insecure, but in a radically different way than Ron IMO. Harry's insecurity amounts to lack of confidence; he's never had positive feedback in his life before Hogwarts. So, he has low self-confidence. He also shuns the spotlight & his fame. But, his insecurities wouldn't be reinforced with every success that his girlfriend achieved; quite the opposite it would seem. It almost appears that Harry would be happiest as the quieter "background" figure in any romantic relationship. Any of her successes would simply remove some of the attention off of him, which he would welcome IMO. I can't imagine that Harry would have any strong desire to be the shining star or the dominant player in a relationship. So, hypothetically, in any H/H romance pairing, if Hermione outshines Harry with her accomplishments, I don't think he's going to feel angry or suffer any self-esteem issues associated with her successes. As I said -- it sure appears that right now Harry would be happiest in the role where he receives the least unwanted attention. Pippin: <<<<<<>>>>> Again, she wouldn't need to. There's nothing about Harry's emotional fragility that suggests he couldn't handle having a girlfriend who was every bit as successful & famous as he is. In fact, as I said above, I think he'd *prefer* that. I don't think he's going to want a girlfriend who's just on his arm because he's the "Boy who Lived." That's completely not Harry. Ron, OTOH, doesn't have *emotional* problems per se. That's not what I meant. Ron wants to be the shining star, he wants to stand out, he wants to succeed -- he has a driving ambition (his heart's deepest desire in fact) to be the "best of them all." So, he's insecure about his accomplishments & his abilities ... his insecurity in this regard is only fueled by having the most famous wizard on earth as his best friend and having the star student at Hogwarts as his other best friend. I would conjecture that what Ron could really use as far as his temporary self-esteem goes, is a girlfriend who doesn't outshine him at every turn. My comment was referring to Hermione not being willing to sublimate her successes & take a back seat so that Ron could shine. I think Ron will want to be the star of the pairing, and if his girlfriend is showing him up at every turn (getting a better job, making more money, receiving press attention for her latest social cause, etc.), I don't think he's going to be terribly happy. Ron may make great strides in overcoming this problem, and it might end up not being an issue in any R/H romance at all. But, based on where he's at right now as far as insecurity & self-esteem, I'd have to say that this would be an issue if the two of them were "going out" ( at David). Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jakobfall28 at yahoo.com Sun May 12 20:20:14 2002 From: jakobfall28 at yahoo.com (jakobfall) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 20:20:14 -0000 Subject: A theory... One variable that would change Harry for the worst.... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38685 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "sailor_moirae" wrote: > In Philosopher's Stone, Draco offered his hand to Harry but Harry > rejected it. And then the sorting hat WANTED to put him in > Slytherin. My theory is that if Harry had ACCEPTED Draco's hand, he > wouldn't have minded to be put into Slytherin. It was because of > Draco that Harry didn't want to be put into Slytherin. Well, WHAT IF > Harry did shake Draco's hand? I believe that that variable is what > determines Harry's future... In good/evil, Gryffindor/Slytherin and > life/death. Think about it... Of course, if Harry had done this and that the entire series would have been drastically changed. However, I believe it is difficult to even address this issue. Harry is a hero at heart and no matter what kind of peer pressure is placed upon him, he always knows the right from the wrong. He could tell innately that this Draco fellow was part of a bad lot and that, though they may have been not as socially high-ranking, the Weasleys were honest and friendly people. If Mr. Potter had, in fact, accepted Draco's hand, he would not be the character that we have all grown to love, and therefore the entire series would have been about his restoration to good instead of his fighting evil. It is difficult to estimate exactly what would have happened since that hypothesis discusses something that the series was never supposed to be about in the first place. By the way, I am new here; in fact, this was my first ever post ^_^ Feel free to IM me on Yahoo IM or AOL IM at jakobfall28. -Jakob Fall From blpurdom at yahoo.com Sun May 12 21:06:21 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 21:06:21 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Ron (SHIP) In-Reply-To: <01e401c1f9e6$15bc97c0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38686 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > Ron wants to be the shining star, he wants to stand out, he wants to succeed -- he has a driving ambition (his heart's deepest desire in fact) to be the "best of them all." So, he's insecure about his accomplishments & his abilities ... his insecurity in this regard is only fueled by having the most famous wizard on earth as his best friend and having the star student at Hogwarts as his other best friend. I would conjecture that what Ron could really use as far as his temporary self-esteem goes, is a girlfriend who doesn't outshine him at every turn. My comment was referring to Hermione not being willing to sublimate her successes & take a back seat so that Ron could shine. I think Ron will want to be the star of the pairing, and if his girlfriend is showing him up at every turn (getting a better job, making more money, receiving press attention for her latest social cause, etc.), I don't think he's going to be terribly happy. I find myself unable to agree with most of this. "Shining star?" "Driving ambition?" I'm afraid you must be confusing him with Percy. Far too much is made of Ron seeing himself in the Mirror of Erised as Head Boy and Quidditch Captain (his heart's desire at the age of ELEVEN, remember) and not enough is made of his resistance to the lure of the mirror, his willingness to sacrifice, and his loyalty. Ron, in fact, is embarassed by Percy's behavior and shows very little interest in emulating his academically-successful brother. He seems far happier being a popular person with good friends rather than someone others are resenting. He may sometimes seem to be resenting Harry for his fame and fortune, but Ron actually comes off as pretty content about his position and lack of responsibility. He gets some nice perks for being Harry's friend (using the Invisibility Cloak comes to mind) and Hermione's friend (she nags him to do his work--which he fights against, but in the end he probably wouldn't get anything done if she didn't). Hermione already outshines Ron academically, and he doesn't mind a bit. Why should this change if they were to become a couple? He seems rather proud of having a best friend, in fact, who does so well in her studies. (And who beats Malfoy, for instance, in every subject.) As for getting attention in the press--well, Ron has seen what that can lead to. Does he want a Rita-Skeeter-style reporter dragging his name through the mud the same way Hermione's and Harry's names were? I don't think so. I think it's possible that his mother tries to guilt him into being more ambitious than he is (she also berates the twins for not being prefects) so it's possible that he's reacting to his mother's pressure when he sees himself in the mirror covered in glory; in the end, perhaps pleasing his mother is really his heart's desire, and he knows what would please her, even though it's possibly not in his nature to deliver those particular things. --Barb From Edblanning at aol.com Sun May 12 21:50:49 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 17:50:49 EDT Subject: (Slight ref. TBAY): Harry Potter and, er, the Philosopher's Stone Message-ID: <8d.1842e98a.2a103db9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38687 David makes a brave attempt to rescue Harry Potter (remember him?) from a strange sect who seem to insist that he bears a remarkable resemblance to someone known as Stoned!Harry. ;-) > The above is what started the Stoned!Harry thread (ironically, a response to > a now-forgotten topic). I wanted to snip it to minimise the amount of > quoted material, but it's too good: there just isn't anything to snip. > > What I want to do now is pick up on some aspects that have been somewhat > obscured in the subsequent discussion. > > The first is that Caroline chose her words very carefully: > > "... he is a living embodiment of the philosopher's stone... Not that he's > necessarily immortal, but that he holds within his being the potential for > eternal life if properly activated." > > I much prefer this to the simplistic 'Harry is immortal' theory. After > all, the stone itself is not immortal - it merely is the means to > immmortality for wizards (and Muggles) I have addressed this, or at least, I have tried to, in pointing out that we seem to be talking about two different types of immortality and that there needs to be some kind of greater outcome than Harry merely being immortal. If we run with the Christ parallel, again we see Christ as the *key* to immortality for others. > > unconcerned about Harry in danger, various beheadings and the like) the way > other list members do. I also think that the parallel between Christ and > Harry is an entirely separate topic: there is no need to focus on > immortality, whether actual or latent, to draw that parallel. (And it's > very difficult to draw right: if you take one book chock full of symbols, > such as Harry Potter, and line the symbols up against those found in > another such book, like the Bible, you are bound to get some > correspondences. IMO, a bit more structure than that is required.) So I > think you TBAY-ers out there may have some sort of catamaran. Of course you are bound to get these coincidences. As I have said, once you start looking for them, you will find them. (And some of us just get innocent pleasure from running with these ideas and seeing how far they will take us.) I would be interested to know, though, what parallels you would draw between Harry and Christ that are unrelated to this thread. One of the things that intrigues me is that I see Harry as quite un-Christlike. The living philosopher's stone idea appeals because it seems to be in a way a secular way of dealing with the ultimate parallel, that of one who gives up his life so that others may receive it. That's how *I* understand Stoned!Harry. JKR draws from many sources, it is true. And different ideologies may share the same symbols. But what seems undeniable is that there are a great many symbols surrounding Harry that do relate to death and resurrection and they are surely there for a reason. > > Anyway, back to the topic. At one level, this is neat, because it gives > Voldemort a reason to be interested in Harry which does not depend on some > hackneyed 'first prophecy': he is after the immortality which can be > unlocked from Harry (this is what Laura said). It is then an open question > whether V was trying to AK Harry as a preliminary towards using his body, > or whether he tried some other 'stone-power-extracting' spell, which > (because of Lily's love) went wrong, leaving V damaged and Harry with > Parseltongue and a V-sensitive scar. The second option has the very > intriguing feature of giving a genuine role to Lily's love in saving Harry > and damaging Voldemort, while avoiding the issue of all those other > presumed mothers who died for their children. Well, canon suggests strongly that there *is* a first prophecy, IMHO. In CoS, Riddle/Voldemort is also very dismissive of Harry, glad to discover that there was nothing special about him. If he does believe he has some key to immortality, then I think he might have had some clue as to why he survived. And he does actually say that he 'failed to kill' him, which suggests to me that that *was* what he was trying to do. > > The theory is also neat because it virtually demands that Harry give up his > stone-powers whatever they may be in detail (and note, it may not *require* > him to die - it is those who would use him who stand not to live on), > unless we are seriously to envisage an ending in which the entire WW will > now have ready access to immortality. This latter is a weakness in the scenario to me as well. Oh, sorry, the reason I think that is neat is because it makes Harry, the > renouncer, a foil to Voldemort the immortality-seeker, as > Caroline said. On the understanding that Harry is renouncing immortality > in the spirit of Dumbledore, who destroys the stone, rather than Flamel, > who renounces his personal immortality. That's interesting. I hadn't thought of that latter particular contrast. > > I'm not quite sure that this is quite right as it stands, though. The > Philosopher's Stone, as I understand it, was itself an allegorical object. > The alchemists wanted to make it, not to get money and unending physical > life, but because understanding its manufacture would help understand how > to transmute the base metal of human nature into the gold of a perfect (or > divine?) nature, of eternal spiritual value. It is JKR's genius to > introduce the physical stone, and transmute its meaning into temptation for > physical gold and life, while possibly allowing the original meaning to > stand also. Yep. I'd go along with that. > > Taking Caroline's symbology (explained in a later post) at face value, the > meaning of the stone may be that you need both Gryffindor and Slytherin, > both Harry and Voldemort to make something which will allow the WW to face > death as the 'next great adventure' with prosperity of spirit. Harry's > role is indeed to renounce the temptations of wealth and longevity (which > Dumbledore has already specifically identified as the two things that > people would choose - "but people have a knack of choosing what is bad for > them": now *there's* a Christian theme for discussion!). I'm not sure > Harry needs any special potential for immortality (or wealth) to fulfil > this symbolic role - he just needs to be tempted. Where I'd differ here is that I wouldn't necessrily equate Slytherin with Voldemort. Voldemort is the ultimate corruption of a Slytherin. Dumbledore's inclusivity embraces the Slytherins as a group at Hogwarts, but it does not embrace Voldemort or Dark Magic. Now whether this is because immature Slytherins are still 'redeemable' for want of a better word, or whether it is because Slytherin virtues, properly harnessed are necessary to complete the whole, I am not sure. One of Harry's tasks seems to be to come to terms with his inner Slytherin, but it hasn't yet been presented in a positive light; Dumbledore has been keen to emphasise the fact that he *is* a true Gryffindor and has downplayed the Slytherin traits as something merely transferred by accident from Voldemort. But then he's not omniscient. Not quite. But I agree on the last point; Harry does need to be tempted. > > On this understanding, there is no particular call for Harry to die at the > end - he just has to accept that a normal lifespan for everybody is the > best way. No short cuts: the physical stone is meant to be a symbol; as an > actual mechanism it is in essence a delusive short cut. > > Perhaps the message is that to be fully human you have to first desire > immortality (Voldemort) and then renounce it (Harry). You have to > recognise that there is more to life than life, and then give it up to get > it. Exactly. But....and I didn't think I would ever hear myself saying this...Where's the Bang in that? There has to be a climax. Every book so far has had the big confrontation, the near brush with death. Your version is convincing and in another kind of book would be quite satisfying, but given the nature of the HP series, Book 7 is surely going to have the biggest, Bangiest ending of all. Harry keeps defeating Voldemort. It's old hat. There has to be more than that and from a dramatic point of view, Harry defeating Voldemort and simply going on to live to a peaceful old age doesn't have any more impact. He has at least to offer his life and I think we at least have to think that he's lost it. > > So, the bottom line is, not that Harry is an embodiment of the physical > stone, but that (possibly in conjunction with Voldemort) he is a better > symbol of the same thing that the stone is a symbol for. Clear? > > Yes, although I cannot agree with everything and do not see how any kind of conjuction with Voldemort (nasty thought ;-) ) is possible. Eloise, eyeing the Big Bang wistfully. Permission to re-board? 'He's not the Messiah! He's a very naughty boy!' (Monty Python's Life of Brian) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From doldra at hotmail.com Sun May 12 21:29:44 2002 From: doldra at hotmail.com (Sophia ...) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 17:29:44 -0400 Subject: Potters and Riddles Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38688 I'm pretty sure this has been discussed before, but since I haven't seen a lot of discussion on the topic lately, I figured it was okay to ask. I wanted to know what people's theories (new or old) were on the connection between the Potters and the Riddles. There's not a lot of concrete evidence that directly supports the theory that they're somehow related, but it's not implausible. In fact, it may explain a lot of things; it's one good way to fill in the gaps that J.K. Rowling has left open. For example, Dumbledore's deliberate ambiguity when Harry asks him why Voldemort tried to kill him when he was only a baby. To be fair, there could be pretty much -any- reason for it (the "Stoned Harry" theory, for instance), because it's a little hard to stomach the fact that the Dark Lord had his powers taken away from him because Lilly loved Harry, but this is another one of them. And it's not entirely unfounded, either: Rowling makes a point of showing the various similarities between Harry and Tom Riddle (and James, for that matter), whether they're on the outside or the inside. Of course, this could be a deliberate attempt to throw people off, but it's nice to speculate. Does anyone have evidence to either support this or refute it? Are there any other theories? --Doldra _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Sun May 12 21:57:28 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (Heidi Rugg) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 17:57:28 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry References: Message-ID: <000701c1fa00$02f577f0$6401a8c0@barefoot> No: HPFGUIDX 38689 Ahoy! Cindy writes: >>Heidi is not distracted by the mini-quiche, the stuffed mushrooms, or the loud music. Instead, she abruptly slams Stoned!Harry up against the nearest wall and begins a withering cross-examination.<< Er...actually those mushrooms were quite delightful -- was that crabmeat? We get great crabmeat here in Virginia and it was de-lish! Quoting Cindy: >>"If Harry is truly immortal," Heidi demands icily, "why would Dumbledore have to have set protective "old magic" over him so that when he is in the care of his relatives, he cannot be harmed?"<< You forgot to add that I tossed my hair back with a superious air. I'm sure I must've been doing that. Cindy again: >>"You see, Dumbledore needs 'old magic' to keep Harry safe even though he is immortal. Dumbledore is worried about a lot more than simply that Voldemort or other Dark Wizards will behead Harry. Stoned!Harry can be neutralized in other ways. For instance, if a Dark Wizard found Harry at the Dursleys, the Dark Wizard could bring a dementor to relieve Harry of his soul, for instance. An Immortal-But-Soulfree Harry would still be immortal -- just very, very useless. Dementors, lethifolds, being turned into a ferret and concealed as a pet in Moody's trunk -- Dumbledore is worried about all of these things!"<< Hmmm...I wonder about those Dementors...I mean, if the soul (*especially* Harry's soul) is immortal, couldn't it be restored? Is there a way to kill a Dementor? Heidi with her main point: I can see how part of Harry's *destiny* is to give up something of great value (I still think he may have to give up all of his magical ability), perhaps his life, which may somehow -- through an older magic -- be restored. I think of Aslan who was killed by the witch at the great stone table. C.S. Lewis was, after all, very influenced by his Christian faith. Although Aslan was *technically* immortal, he *did* give up his life. He truly did die. Then through a greater, older magic than any the witch had know of, was resurrected. I am not convinced of Harry's immortality per se, at least not beyond any other mere mortal's eternal soul. I don't see Dumbledore fiddling around with embryos. I see him reading signs (like we're doing here), being aware and taking appropriate action. Cindy: >>Heidi turns to the stranger, her hands on her hips. "Why," she asks, "was Dumbledore concerned about Harry dying ("almost lost you") at the end of PS/SS with Quirrel/Voldemort?"<< You forgot the part about my chin thrusting forward. Oh, and my flashing eyes. They're brown. Captain Cindy: >>"Well, your question rests on the premise that Dumbledore was worried that Harry would die," she responds evenly. "Dumbledore could have been worried about something short of that. A never- ending coma, or perhaps that Voldemort had succeeded in sucking Harry's power out of him, for example. There's also the possiblity that Dumbledore isn't completely sure that everything has worked correctly and Stoned!Harry is really immortal. These spells are complex, you know. Dumbledore has already seen the Fidelius Charm plan backfire. Besides, we later learn that Dumbledore is the self- deprecating type, based on his statement that he may have botched the Age Line in GoF. He may have been consumed with self-doubt about whether he had succeeded in making Stoned!Harry immortal."<< Again, I cannot see Dumbledore *making* Harry immortal. Dumbledore has never wanted to *use* his God-like powers. I don't see Dumbledore as being the "consumed with doubt" type. He's not a worrywart -- that's more McGonagal's style or even Snape's. Even in PS/SS it was Snape following Quirrell and keeping an eye on Fluffy. The only time Dumbledore has come out and intervened that I can recall, is when Harry was visiting the Mirror of Erised. Even then, he was just taking appropriate action. He had the foresight to think that the knowledge might be necessary. But "consumed with doubt"? Never. And the sherbert was quite tasty -- though I prefer raspberry, just so you know next time you stock the boat. Heidi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun May 12 22:00:17 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:00:17 -0000 Subject: Climax pattern In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38690 > Anyway, on a side mention, that I'll throw in here as a bonus, has > anyone else noticed a pattern on how Harry faced the climax of each > book? In SS, he went through the challenges with Ron and Hermione, > for the most part. In CoS he went down into the Chamber with Ron. In > PoA, he traveled using the Time Turner with Hermione. In GoF, he was > essentially alone. Do you see any significance? > > -Katherine ---------- I myself see it differently. PS: Ron and Hermione helped Harry to get into the last chamber, where Harry faced Quirrell alone. Ron was paralysed by the chessboard and Hermione had to leave because of the lack of potion... CS: Hermione's disabled; Ron's wand -- disabled, but it *still* saves them from amnesia. Harry *was* fighting Voldemort mostly alone - except that Fawkes came to help. PA: Harry does *the* thing -- alone, when he summoned the Patronus! Helped to it by Hermione and Ron - and afterwards to finish the job. GF: Ron's off; Hermione helping -- first task over. Then, they *both* are disabled and Harry must rescue them (like being paralysed by Basilisk?)-- although Krum helps with Hermione, and Harry saves Ron. Both Hermione and Ron help Harry prepare for the third task - but he's in it alone... I see fourth book as a summary - except that this time - this time - someone really died. -- Finwitch From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 13 00:16:51 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 00:16:51 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Ron (SHIP) In-Reply-To: <01e401c1f9e6$15bc97c0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38691 I argued against the H/H ship: >>Are you really saying that Ron has more emotional problems than Harry? Harry, who can't remember what it's like to be hugged, who has recurring nightmares, whose worst fears are powerful enough to incapacitate him?>>>> Penny: >>>>> No. I think we're talking about two separate issues (at least) here. You're right Pippin that Harry is emotionally fragile and may not have the capacity to engage in a romantic relationship at all (for a long time or even ever) -- with Hermione or Ginny or Cho or anyone. He has no memories of intimacy and no good models for successful intimate relationships. << Except that he's got his hormones pushing him Penny: > >>>But, his emotional fragility is an entirely separate issue from his insecurities. Harry is insecure, but in a radically different way than Ron IMO. Harry's insecurity amounts to lack of confidence; he's never had positive feedback in his life before Hogwarts. <<<<< IMO, Harry's missing a whole lot more than positive feedback. I see what you're saying about Harry as more applicable to Ron. Ron's the one who just needs some positive feedback, a sense that what he's doing matters to somebody. IMO, Ron wants to feel that his friends and family appreciate him. I don't see him as needing strokes from any one else. He's not miserable because Harry got chosen Tri-wizard Champion, remember, but because he thinks Harry didn't take him into his confidence about it. Whatever jealousy he has of Harry's fame and wealth is minor. He's seen enough of Malfoy to know that wealth isn't everything, and that Harry's fame comes with the price of a nice shiny target on his back. Harry, OTOH, has been forced to relive his parents' murder, seen a friend killed in front of him, been raised by adults who refuse to touch him, learned that his mother died to save him and above all that there is a very heavy burden of expectation on him to see that she didn't die in vain. I feel that if Harry connects with anyone on a more intimate level, it's going to knock the scabs off some of those wounds. When that happens, he's going to be less functional than he is now, I think, and a lot more demanding of whoever he's with. I think those emotional demands would be pretty hard on someone who is thoroughly wrapped up in a lifestyle of achievement. Harry might be satisfied at first to hook up with someone who didn't overtax his capacity for intimacy, but I think after a while he would start to wonder what was missing in his life and I think, if his partner was Hermione, she would feel the same. It's pretty hard to feel close to someone when you're hiding your feelings from them. Penny: >>>So, he has low self-confidence. He also shuns the spotlight & his fame. But, his insecurities wouldn't be reinforced with every success that his girlfriend achieved; quite the opposite it would seem. It almost appears that Harry would be happiest as the quieter "background" figure in any romantic relationship. Any of her successes would simply remove some of the attention off of him, which he would welcome IMO. <<<< But is this ever going to happen? I don't think any coming volumes will be titled "Hermione Granger and ...." Harry will be the center of attention as long as he remains part of the wizarding world. IMO, it won't matter if Hermione gets elected Minister of Magic, discovers the cure for dragonpox, wins the Order of Merlin and chases a Snitch through London naked on a broomstick at the age of 75. If H/H happens the Daily Prophet will still bill her as Harry's partner. Somehow, I don't think she'd be really happy about that Pippin From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Mon May 13 00:40:31 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (Heidi Rugg) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 20:40:31 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potters and Riddles References: Message-ID: <000701c1fa16$c9618300$6401a8c0@barefoot> No: HPFGUIDX 38692 Doldra writes: >>I wanted to know what people's theories (new or old) were on the connection between the Potters and the Riddles. There's not a lot of concrete evidence that directly supports the theory that they're somehow related, but it's not implausible.<< It'd be difficult to prove a connections based on what we *do* know about the Riddle family. They are muggles and, it appears, there are not any survivors from Tom's immediate family. It seems rather ala Darth Vader if they are related, but who knows! Heidi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Mon May 13 01:55:47 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 20:55:47 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stoned Harry References: <001b01c1f897$5198c0c0$6401a8c0@barefoot> Message-ID: <00d801c1fa21$4e4b3160$b17663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38693 Heidi Rugg said > I've been reading the Stoned!Harry theory with great interest, but am left pondering a few questions... I have been only skimming, to my chagrin, as time will not allow this thread the attention it deserves. So apologies, if my question below is either irrelevant or well covered already. I also know almost nothing about TBAY and so have no idea why this thread falls therein, save that it lets the creative writers cavort on the beach. Sparing you all the sight of me in a bathing suit, I press on. > 1. If Harry is truly immortal, why would Dumbledore have to have set protective "old magic" over him so that when he is in the care of his relatives, he cannot be harmed? As I understand it, y'all's theory holds that Harry is a "living stone," shored up with many interesting bits of armament. However, even if he is, why should that make him immortal? The stone itself is not immortal; Flamel's has been destroyed, so it can be. The stone is rather a vital component to make that which *confers* immortality. The question would seem to me to be: what will Harry (in his role as "stone") act upon to make immortal? What will his existence protect or shield or extend? > 2. Why was Dumbledore concerned about Harry dying ("almost lost you") at the end of PS/SS with Quirrel/Voldemort? Um, I may be way off base on this one, but--because he cares about his students and it's a real drag when they go off and get themselves killed? Not to mention the tedium of dealing with school governors and all? > I'm not entirely convinced about this theory, but am intrigued by all of the symbolism and literary references. It's very fascinating...so, by all means, don't stop! Me, too--this is intriguing. I will point out, though, that everything on the planet that medieval minds came into contact with had symbolism attached. The physical world was a huge lesson through which man wandered, and everything in it served as an illustration. So there may be a certain amount of canon cites which are actually completely accidental (like the yew in the graveyard thing, hard to find a graveyard without them, and I bet JKR make Voldemort's wand of yew because of that association and no other). Especially with names, a number of fascinating and solid-seeming links and origins and associations have been found, of which JKR was apparently unaware. I think it is part of her genius that she "plugs into" the collective unconscious and cultural imagery, and can reach out and pluck a perfect name, *without* being aware of why it is so perfect. I suspect some of the Stoned!Harry theory is this, her ability to pull together imagery so well by "feel." However, there's so many little snippets of support for it, I find it insanely alluring and am enjoying the bits of the thread I can read. What a bummer if none of this ever occurred to her and the ending is actually rather pedestrian. --Amanda From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Mon May 13 03:02:02 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 03:02:02 -0000 Subject: =?iso-8859-1?q?It=92s_By_Barty_(filk)?= Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38694 I continue to ruthlessly exploit the consonance between the words "Barty" and "party". It's By Barty (from GoF) (to the tune of It's My Party) Dedicated to Tabouli Hear the original at: http://www.buffnet.net/~ambrosia/page16.htm SYNOPSIS: The TRIO are baffled by the mysterious disappearance of Barty Crouch, Sr. RON & HERMIONE Nobody knows why Crouch Senior is gone But he still sends his owls When we ask Percy of him With sheer annoyance he howls: PERCY (brandishing a letter) It's by Barty, and he writes when he wants to Writes when he wants to, writes when he wants to I'm in command cause I know Crouch's hand HARRY The Prefect's bathroom I'm leaving one night I gave the egg clue some thought But then I glanced at my Map And saw his name on a Dot It says Barty, and the Dungeon he hunts through Dungeon he hunts through, Dungeon he hunts through If he's caught flu, why's he playing gumshoe? I told Moody that Crouch had come by He looked alarmed at the name He said that Crouch is the guy Who puts all Aurors to shame (HARRY gives the Map to MOODY and exits) "MOODY" It's my father, and he'll die when I find him Die when I find him, die when I find him And with this Map, he'll be easy to trap! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From pennylin at swbell.net Mon May 13 03:26:32 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 22:26:32 -0500 Subject: Hermione and Ron (SHIP) References: Message-ID: <025501c1fa2d$fa632b40$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38695 Hi -- Responses to Barb, Pippin & Dave -- I said: <<<<>>> Barb responded: <<>>> That's okay. I find myself unable to agree with most of what you wrote too, so I suppose we're just interpreting Ron differently. <<<"Shining star?" "Driving ambition?" I'm afraid you must be confusing him with Percy.>>> Nope. I think Percy gets pegged as the "ambitious one." But, IMO, that overlooks the fact that *all* of the Weasley males are arguably ambitious, except perhaps for Arthur. Arthur -- I say "perhaps" he's not so ambitious, but really I wonder if it isn't that his ambition is subverted to his conscience? Molly says that Arthur's been "held back" at the MOM all those years, presumably for his stance on muggle relations. So, it may be that he has ambition but just chooses not to exercise it. Bill & Charlie -- Both were successful at Hogwarts & both have attained jobs that *sound* reasonably prestigious. Hard to say for certain on both of them without more details .... but I'd peg them both to be at least moderately ambitious (if not in fact highly driven). Percy -- No need to elaborate. Mr. Ambition. Fred & George -- We had no inkling that behind the comic facade lurked two ambitious planners until GoF. But, in GoF, we learn that the Twins have masterminded a business plan & saved capital for years. We also know that they'll go to some questionable lengths to put their plans into action. Ambitious? Heh. Yeah, I'd say so. Ron -- Again, he *is* ambitious IMO. I think Barb that you're focusing on academically-tied success & ambitions. No, Ron isn't ambitious under that model. He's outwardly rejecting the Percy model for success. But, he's certainly got plenty of drive to better himself ... to not be poor all his life & to achieve a certain level of recognition. We had a saying in law school: those who make As become law professors, those who make Bs become judges, and those who make Cs become millionaires. In other words, academia is often not always the route to all success in life, and Ron (and the Twins) seem to know this. <<<<<>>>>>>>> I actually wasn't relying entirely on the Mirror of Erised scene in making my statements about Ron's ambition. Though I do note that we've certainly no evidence that Ron's deepest desire has *changed* in the last 3 yrs. But, in any case, I think we see his ambition in other ways. Like the Twins, much of this comes out in GoF I think. His statement "I hate being poor" after he's confronted Harry about Harry not noticing the leprechaun gold disappearing. I don't interpret that remark as a simple declarative statement; I interpret it as "I hate being poor *and I intend to do things to make sure I don't stay that way all my life.*" He is obviously eager to become an auror once Moody mentions to Harry & Hermione that they have the skill set to pursue that career. <<<<<>>>>> Do you really think Ron is *popular* or is he just the type guy who can fit in easily enough with other people? <<<<<>>>>> Evidence that he is in fact content about his position? I see the reverse myself. Your interpretation that he gets some nice perks without being a moving target for the DEs may or may not square with *his* interpretation of his situation. <<<<<>>>>>>> Sometimes he seems proud of it. But, academia is not really where Ron wants to make his mark. He *does* want to be an auror though. Crouch-as-Moody thinks Harry would make a great auror. He also thinks Hermione would. Despite obvious angling by Ron, he declines to say anything about Ron. For whatever Crouch-as-Moody's judgment is worth, this might be a potential landmine later though. Let's just say that Hermione lands a coveted position post-Hogwarts, a position that her boyfriend Ron wanted but didn't get -- is he happy about this? My interpretation is possibly not (it's a little hard to extrapolate out what Ron might be like 5 yrs down the road). Current!Ron would, IMHO, be not so very happy about it. <<<<<<<<>>>>>>> Hmmm... well, I guess we interpret these things differently. If the Mirror shows a person what his/her deepest most desperate desire is, isn't it a bit odd to think that a person wouldn't have his/her own independent desires, apart from wanting to please someone else superficially? Moving on to Pippin: <<<<>>>>>> That's what Ron says. Hermione says that Ron's jealous of Harry's fame. I think Ron was angry that Harry got the opportunity to be a Tri-Wizard Champion even though he was 3 yrs too young. I don't think it's so much that Harry wasn't taking Ron into his confidence. At least that's not my spin on it. <<<<<<>>>>>>>> Minor? Really? He mentions money (or the lack thereof) often enough for someone who isn't too hung up about it. I think Percy is ambitious for power. I think the Twins are ambitious for money. I think Ron is ambitious for some mixture of both. <<<<<<<< I feel that if Harry connects with anyone on a more intimate level, it's going to knock the scabs off some of those wounds. When that happens, he's going to be less functional than he is now, I think, and a lot more demanding of whoever he's with. I think those emotional demands would be pretty hard on someone who is thoroughly wrapped up in a lifestyle of achievement.>>>>>> That's a good point. Quite possible that Harry might become emotionally needy. Personally I see Hermione as the nurturing type, but I know not everyone agrees with that assessment. I guess I see the risk that Ron would be bitter at being overshadowed by his girlfriend as a far greater risk than that Harry might become too emotionally needy for Successful!Hermione to handle. Then again, maybe she's not too well-suited for either of her best friends after all. <<<<<<>>>>>> So, you've switched scenarios here? In one scenario, we have emotionally clingy Harry, who would be too co-dependent for Hermione. In this scenario, you're suggesting that Harry would be distant & not fully operating to full potential if engaged in a relationship with Hermione? Well, those are possibilities. I'd say that they're about as likely as my scenario of Ron being bitter & angry that his girlfriend was over-shadowing him. Seriously, though, I was not suggesting that H/H would work because Harry could remain closed-off emotionally. I was arguing that Harry wouldn't feel the need to be the dominant party in the relationship and would therefore not be threatened by Hermione's successes. This doesn't have any bearing on whether or not he would be fully-engaged in a romantic relationship; that's a completely separate issue. Switching lastly & briefly to Dave, who said: <<<<<>>>>>>>> I've argued this point before, in a non-shipping context. I think Ron is just engaging in the "Well, XX is an exception" but retaining his general prejudice against the group to whom XX belongs. Making special exceptions for Hagrid & Lupin doesn't mean Ron isn't still prejudiced. But, even if you're right & Ron isn't really prejudiced, he certainly does treat Hermione's approach with disdain. And, so I stand by my position that they have some fundamental differences of opinion *at this time.* I said: <<<<> No, I don't think so. I think bickering is the defining characteristic of their relationship; it's how they interact.>>>> Dave said: <<<<<<<>>>>>>>>> I don't think this entirely something we can settle by just consulting canon. What I interpret as bickering may differ markedly from what is bickering as far as you're concerned. I think it's a subjective thing in the end. And, yes, Amy Z, I do realize and agree that what I think about bickering couples doesn't amount to a hill of beans in terms of what might happen with R/H. I said as much in my message on that. I was just noting that *I* (emphasize *I*) do not understand relationships conducted in this manner, and it would make me terribly unhappy to bicker with my SO. It might make JKR happy. More importantly, it might make Hermione & Ron happy, and if so, great. :--) Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From blpurdom at yahoo.com Mon May 13 04:30:52 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 04:30:52 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Ron (SHIP) In-Reply-To: <025501c1fa2d$fa632b40$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38696 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > Hi -- > > Responses to Barb, Pippin & Dave -- > > I said: > <<<"Shining star?" "Driving ambition?" I'm afraid you must be confusing him with Percy.>>> > > Nope. I think Percy gets pegged as the "ambitious one." But, > IMO, that overlooks the fact that *all* of the Weasley males are > arguably ambitious, except perhaps for Arthur. But you're missing something here; when a Weasley really wants something, he grabs for it. Bill probably worked quite hard to become Head Boy and get all of those O.W.L.s. (We don't hear about his N.E.W.T.s, though, do we?) Charlie seemed to be a natural at Quidditch, but to get the entire team to win the cup, he must have put in hours in training everyone and devising strategies. Percy obviously worked hard in school and is a bit of a workaholic out of school. Even the twins are a bit compulsive about what really matters to them (the joke merchandise and getting their money from Bagman). What does Ron do? Skives off his homework, makes up Divination charts, crosses his fingers and hopes for the best in Potions and begs Hermione to copy her History of Magic essays. If being Head Boy were really his ambition, he'd be working toward that, which he clearly is not. What DO we see him working hard at? Finding out about the Philosopher's Stone, finding out about the Chamber of Secrets, helping Harry prepare for the second and third tasks of the Tournament. Are any of these things likely to get him fame and glory? No. Yet this is what he concentrates on. Who wouldn't like fame and glory? Sure, it would be nice. But you make him sound like a Slytherin. He toils in relative obscurity for the greater good and gets no notice for it. He KNOWS that he contributed to Harry's successes, too, and who doesn't like to be acknowledged for doing things like that? It's just fair. (That's one reason it's quite nice that Dumbledore gives him his points for the chess game.) However, he doesn't make a fuss about no one giving him credit for his malfunctioning wand being a good thing at the end of CoS or for volunteering to die in the Shrieking Shack in PoA. He isn't constantly running about pointing out the good things he's done and demanding the spotlight because of it. > But, he's certainly got plenty of drive to better himself ... to > not be poor all his life & to achieve a certain level of > recognition. We had a saying in law school: those who make As > become law professors, those who make Bs become judges, and those > who make Cs become millionaires. In other words, academia is > often not always the route to all success in life, and Ron (and > the Twins) seem to know this. Wanting the RESULTS of the work is not the same thing at all. As I said, who wouldn't want to be rich? But when Ron says this it's rather pie-in-the-sky. It's a grass-is-always-greener attitude. Most people feel that way, regardless of how much ambition they have. I feel that Ron's greatest ambition is actually to know he has done the right thing, which he has done, repeatedly, often with no acknowledgement whatsoever. His actions speak louder than his words (grousing about money and fame). If that had happened to Percy, he would have been writing letters to the Daily Prophet demanding to know why his deeds weren't being covered on the front page. Ron is not very much like Percy at all. > <<<<< Mirror of Erised as Head Boy and Quidditch Captain (his heart's > desire at the age of ELEVEN, remember) and not enough is made of his resistance to the lure of the mirror, his willingness to sacrifice, and his loyalty.>>>>>>>>> > He is obviously eager to become an auror once Moody mentions to > Harry & Hermione that they have the skill set to pursue that > career. He's eager not to be dissed by the coolest teacher in school and not to seem unworthy of his friends. Not the same thing at all. > <<<<<>>>>> > > Do you really think Ron is *popular* or is he just the type guy who can fit in easily enough with other people? It's hard to separate the two. People obviously like being around him. When he and Harry are on the outs, he doesn't have any trouble finding other people to socialize with. > <<<<<>>>>> > > Evidence that he is in fact content about his position? I see the reverse myself. Your interpretation that he gets some nice perks without being a moving target for the DEs may or may not square with *his* interpretation of his situation. The evidence has already been given. He's done many good things for which he gets little or no credit, without hitting the roof about it. That's being content. > <<<<<>>>>>>> > > Sometimes he seems proud of it. But, academia is not really where Ron wants to make his mark. He *does* want to be an auror though. As noted, to say this one passage means he wants to be an Auror is a stretch. He's just feeling left out. > <<<<<<<<>>>>>>> > > Hmmm... well, I guess we interpret these things differently. If the Mirror shows a person what his/her deepest most desperate desire is, isn't it a bit odd to think that a person wouldn't have his/her own independent desires, apart from wanting to please someone else superficially? Not at all. Ron frequently speaks of how his mother would react to something. Molly's opinion is clearly very important to him. Many people go through their entire lives trying to please their parents and do not ever give much thought to what they really want to do. Perhaps this is really why Ron seems somewhat aimless at this point in his life; he's not really focussing on what HE wants as much as his mother. > Moving on to Pippin: > > <<<<< He's not miserable because Harry got chosen Tri-wizard Champion, remember, but because he thinks Harry didn't take him into his confidence about it.>>>>>>> > > That's what Ron says. Hermione says that Ron's jealous of Harry's fame. I think Ron was angry that Harry got the opportunity to be a Tri-Wizard Champion even though he was 3 yrs too young. I don't think it's so much that Harry wasn't taking Ron into his confidence. At least that's not my spin on it. I have to agree with Pippin here. It's also consistent with Ron's biggest pet peeve--lack of loyalty. He feels it was disloyal of Harry not confide in him about both his intent to enter the Tournament and the method he used to accomplish it. He feels Hermione shows disloyalty to him as a friend during the whole Scabbers debacle in PoA. As someone who is very, very loyal to his friends, he's also very, very (overly)sensitive when he believes that they have not returned this in kind. He's so sensitive to it, in fact, that he's blind to there being extenuating circumstances and needs a major kick in the pants about the hissy fits he's thrown, IMHO. But it's still perfectly consistent with his personality. OTOH, saying he's upset about not being in the spotlight is NOT consistent, I believe. > That's a good point. Quite possible that Harry might become emotionally needy. Personally I see Hermione as the nurturing type, but I know not everyone agrees with that assessment. But that's where I agree with you. She's very nurturing toward both boys. She's very supportive of Ron when the poor kid is belching up slugs because he defended her; she's very nurturing toward Harry when she's staying up with him till all hours helping him learn the summoning charm. These are just two examples. (She's also very sweet with Hagrid during the Buckbeak trial.) I think that "nurturer" is actually the best description of her, and it is one reason why she would probably NOT make a good Auror, IMO, but that's another post. I do think it's another reason why she'd make a good prefect and/or Head Girl, with the responsibility of looking out for younger students. > I guess I see the risk that Ron would be bitter at being > overshadowed by his girlfriend as a far greater risk than that > Harry might become too emotionally needy for Successful!Hermione > to handle. Then again, maybe she's not too well-suited for > either of her best friends after all. Non-shippers may officialy throw confetti into the air. This may in fact be where JKR is going with the relationship of the Trio, and the possibility of R/H thrown out there in GoF may be just a red herring. > Switching lastly & briefly to Dave, who said: > > <<<<<>>>>>>>> Actually, Ron is very PC (as far as we're concerned) about one of the most important issues in the wizarding world: purity of blood. He talks about it not mattering at all, as does Hagrid. Ron is pureblood and he could be very snooty about that, like Malfoy, if he wanted to. But he was taught the opposite at home. One can assume that about his other attitudes, as well, and really, the attitude about werewolves is only practical, and he had a broken leg and thought the werewolf in question was aiding and abetting a murderer at the time. Folks keep forgetting that. He's still very much a product of his home and has yet to come into his own and develop his own opinions about many things. He's parrotting much of the time right now. > I said: <<<<> No, I don't think so. I think bickering is the defining characteristic of their relationship; it's how they interact.>>>> Eh. The bickering is interesting. It drives the plot. I prefer not to get all shippy over the bickering. If the three friends agreed on everything all the time, how interesting would that be? I sometimes had to read Boxcar Children books to my daughter when she was younger (::shudder::) and those kids are always, "Oh! I think Mr. Maguire is the thief!" "You're right. You're so brilliant!" "Yes, how do you think of these things?" Gag-gag-barf- barf. (Sorry if there are BC fans out there.) JKR has created three interesting main characters with distinct personalities, and the conflict between them also helps get some important information about the wizarding world into the stories without long, boring exposition or essays about the wizarding world breaking up the action. Long live the bickering! --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From boggles at earthlink.net Mon May 13 02:49:44 2002 From: boggles at earthlink.net (Jennifer Boggess Ramon) Date: Sun, 12 May 2002 21:49:44 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil (Nel Question - LONG) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38697 Sorry replying so late - I've been off e-mail for a while - At 3:58 PM +0000 4/29/02, heiditandy wrote: > >OPPOSITES & SIMILARITIES > >Do any of these pairs/groups function as doubles (they might not)? If >so, which kind? What function might this doubling have in the Grand >Scheme of Things? > >Dudley and Draco How about Vernon and Lucius? Heads and Tails of the Bad Father coin . . . -- - 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 doldra at hotmail.com Mon May 13 03:05:28 2002 From: doldra at hotmail.com (bystardust) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 03:05:28 -0000 Subject: Potters and Tom's family In-Reply-To: <000701c1fa16$c9618300$6401a8c0@barefoot> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38698 Heidi Rugg wrote: > It'd be difficult to prove a connections based on what we *do* know > about the Riddle family. They are muggles and, it appears, there > are not any survivors from Tom's immediate family. It seems rather > ala Darth Vader if they are related, but who knows! Yes, but what about Tom's mother? I suppose I didn't really make that clear...by Riddles I really meant Tom. And by Tom I mean Tom and Tom's family. Sorry! :) --Doldra From Edblanning at aol.com Mon May 13 09:39:17 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 05:39:17 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potters and Riddles Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38699 Doldra: > And it's not > entirely unfounded, either: Rowling makes a point of showing the various > similarities between Harry and Tom Riddle (and James, for that matter), > whether they're on the outside or the inside. Of course, this could be a > deliberate attempt to throw people off, but it's nice to speculate. > > Those similarities, I'm sure, are an absolutely crucial part of the series and not unrelated to the Stoned!Harry thread. The similarities are noted by the brother wands (which choose the wizards), the Sorting Hat, which recognises Harry's potential for greatness in Slytherin (isn't it interesting that it sort of implies that he's giving up the chance of 'greatness' by choosing Gryffindor?), by Dumbledore, by Tom Riddle and, of course, by Harry himself. I think it is clear that Harry could, if he chose, be another Voldemort. He is destined for greatness (and 'He-who-Must-Not-Be-Named did great things - terrible, yes, but great). It is his choice to be virtuous that distinguishes him. The two of them are the embodiment of Dumbledore's dictum that, 'it is our choices..... that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities.'. Voldemort is, if you like, the 'AntiHarry', his grasping for immortality the antithesis of the willingness Harry has already shown to risk his life for others. What about the families? Well, we know little about either of them. Tom inherits his 'pureblood' through his mother (Salazar Slytherin's to boot) and Harry through his father (and it has, of course, been speculated that he is descended from Gryffindor). Tom *takes* his Muggle father's life and then uses him in order to restore himself to a whole (as opposed to a half-) life; Muggle-born Lily *gives* her life and in doing so apparently gives Harry protection from death. Tom despises his family and rids himself of them; Harry's deepest longing is for a family. Whatever more we learn of them I won't be surprised at all if it isn't to point out more contrasting similarities. I don't think, however that there is any indication that they are actually related. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lupinesque at yahoo.com Mon May 13 13:08:02 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 13:08:02 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione friendship Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38700 David wrote: >I see plenty of bickering, but 'defining characteristic' - not me. We need Amy's list. Your wish is my command. There's no SHIP in the subject heading because I don't think Ron and Hermione's friendship or lack thereof necessarily implies romantic possibilities or lack thereof. But that they *are* genuine friends, I have no doubt, and I decided it was high time to document that fact. Doing this exercise-going through the books jotting down interactions between them-confirms that they do bicker a lot. Man, do they bicker. It's very entertaining for the reader (this one anyway), but must grow tiresome if you're actually in the room (Harry is the soul of patience). I suppose the main question is not whether it exceeds Harry's threshold or ours, but whether it exceeds their own. In any case, it has been suggested on this list from time to time that not only do they bicker, but they don't seem to do much else, so: follows a list of other things Ron and Hermione do. I've tried to focus on the things they do alone together, as their time with Harry can too easily (though not convincingly, IMO) be dismissed as their tolerating one another in order to be with their real friend. I've written down interactions in Harry's presence, of course, since those are most of the interactions we see, but only when they are interactions between the two of them that show things like agreement or mutual concern, and not just each talking to him. (1) Play chess together (PS/SS 13, GF 37) (2) Agree with each other. PS/SS 16: "Harry, relax, Hermione's right, the Stone's safe as long as Dumbledore's around." PS/SS 13: "Don't play," said Hermione at once. "Say you're ill," said Ron. "Pretend to break your leg," Hermione suggested. "*Really* break your leg," said Ron. PA 22: "But if he's resigned-" "--doesn't sound like there's anything we can do-" (3) Watch Quidditch together: practice (CS 7), games (PS 11, 13) (4) Shop for school things together (PA 4) (5) Write each other letters (Hermione to Ron, CS 4; Ron to Hermione, PA 1) (6) Visit Harry when he's injured PA 9 after the Hufflepuff match PS/SS 17 after the showdown with Voldemort GF 36 ditto (7) Talk about Harry PA 11: "Harry could tell they had rehearsed this conversation while he had been asleep" (8) Work together on a project (Buckbeak's defense, PA 11) (9) Show concern for the other when he/she is hurt Ron re: Hermione: CS 14: And on the bed next to her was- "*Hermione!*" Ron groaned. CS 16: "Wonder if she did see the attacker, though?" said Ron, looking sadly at Hermione's rigid face. CS 18: "I daresay the Basilisk's victims will be waking up any moment." "So Hermione's OK!" said Ron brightly. GF 9: "Let's just keep moving, shall we?" said Ron, and Harry saw him glance edgily at Hermione. Perhaps there was truth in what Malfoy had said; perhaps Hermione *was* in more danger than they were. Hermione re: Ron: PS 16: [screams when the white queen strikes Ron, then:] With one last desperate look back at Ron, Harry and Hermione charged through the door and up the next passageway. "What if he's-" "He'll be all right," said Harry, trying to convince himself. PA 17: On the floor beside him, clutching his leg, which stuck out at a strange angle, was Ron. Harry and Hermione dashed across to him. CS9: "Ron! Ron! Are you all right?" squealed Hermione. (10) Sort through mysteries, speculate, etc. together PA 22: "[T]hey and Harry wandered into the grounds, still talking about the extraordinary events of the previous night and wondering where Sirius and Buckbeak were now. Sitting near the lake, watching the giant squid waving its tentacles lazily above the water, Harry lost the thread of the conversation as he looked across to the opposite bank." (11) Tease (as distinct from "bicker with") each other GF 13: "Well, that won't matter if they turn out to cure sea sickness or something, will it?" said Ron, grinning slyly at her. (12) Hug at moments of great emotion GF 20, when Ron and Harry make up PA 15, when Ron and Hermione do (13) Intercede in friendship troubles GF 19: "She went from one to the other, trying ot force them to talk to each other." (14) Soothe/reassure (again, Hermione's department) PS 14: Harry and Hermione tried to calm Ron down. "It'll all be over at midnight on Saturday," said Hermione, but this didn't soothe Ron at all. ( She's trying, though!) CS 9: "Nearly there, Ron," said Hermione, as the gamekeeper's cabin came into view. "You'll be all right in a minute . . . almost there . . ." GF 11: "Dad could've got promotion any time . . . he just likes it where he is . . . " "Of course he does," said Hermione quietly. (15) Defend each other (here it's Ron defending Hermione) CS 7, GF 9: against Draco when he calls her "Mudblood" GF 18: "Malfoy got Hermione!" Ron said. "*Look!*" He forced Hermione to show Snape her teeth . . . (16) Go to Hogsmeade together without Harry and have a great time PA 8 (17) Study together PA 8: Harry returns from practice to find Ron and Hermione "sitting in two of the best chairs by the fireside and completing some star charts for Astronomy." (18) Hermione gives Ron Christmas presents (we can only hope he reciprocates . . . ) CS 12 Is this the way a writer would portray a relationship between two people whose only connection was their friendship with a third? I don't see how JKR could make it much clearer that Ron and Hermione are friends in their own right. They spend too much time voluntarily in one another's company-not just to be with Harry, but just being together even when he isn't around-and have too wide a variety of pleasant interactions for their relationship to be less than genuine friendship. Amy Z From jamminjerry at madnessmansion.com Mon May 13 11:25:34 2002 From: jamminjerry at madnessmansion.com (Jarrod Jicha) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 07:25:34 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Potters and Riddles In-Reply-To: <000701c1fa16$c9618300$6401a8c0@barefoot> References: Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020513072234.009eeda0@mail.madnessmansion.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38701 Doldra wrote: > >>I wanted to know what people's theories (new or old) were on the > connection between the Potters and the Riddles. There's not a lot of > concrete evidence that directly supports the theory that they're somehow > related, but it's not implausible.<< Heidi replied: >It'd be difficult to prove a connections based on >what we *do* know about the Riddle family. They are muggles and, it >appears, there are not any survivors from Tom's immediate family. It >seems rather ala Darth Vader if they are related, but who knows! This is all true, but let us not forget that Mrs. Riddle was a witch. Remember that. Voldemort/Tom Riddle told Harry this in Book Two. That was why his father left her. Jerrod From mike_wiltse at yahoo.com Mon May 13 09:24:21 2002 From: mike_wiltse at yahoo.com (mike_wiltse) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 09:24:21 -0000 Subject: Slytherin House In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38702 The real question should be "If Harry had wanted to go into > Slytherin, would the sorting hat have let him?" Catlady wrote: >If Harry had wanted to go into Slytherin when all he knew was that >the Song said that Slytherins are ambitious, and the hat told him >that being in Slytherin would help him become great, he would have >been a different person than the Harry we know, the one who would >rather have a normal life and not be fussed over than be a hero. Hmm not right, the Slytherin line in his year was: "Or perhaps in Slytherin You'll make your real friends, Those cunning folk use any means To achieve their ends." And what the hat told him while he was wearing it. Hmm," said a small voice in his ear. "Difficult. Very difficult. Plenty of courage, I see. Not a bad mind either. There's talent, A my goodness, yes -- and a nice thirst to prove yourself, now that's interesting.... So where shall I put you?" Harry gripped the edges of the stool and thought, Not Slytherin, not Slytherin. "Not Slytherin, eh?" said the small voice. "Are you sure? You could be great, you know, it's all here in your head, and Slytherin will help you on the way to greatness, no doubt about that -- no? Well, if you're sure -- better be GRYFFINDOR!" Courage = Gryfindor Thirst to prove himself = Slytherin Talent??? That thirst is what makes "Harry" Harry. He has not only his own reputation to live up to, he also has his father, and his mothers who died for him. The courage is what makes him stand up in the first place, but its the fact that he has something to live up to that keeps him going. And What Hagrid told him. "And what are Slytherin and Hufflepuff?" "School houses. There's four. Everyone says Hufflepuff are a lot o' duffers, but --" "I bet I'm in Hufflepuff" said Harry gloomily. "Better Hufflepuff than Slytherin," said Hagrid darkly. "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin. You-Know-Who was one." Ok, then how about this. What if Harry had never heard anything bad about Slytherin. In this Hypothisis Harry goes first in the sorting so he doesnt even have to worry about being in the same house as anyone he has met. I have gone through the sorting again and dont see anything being said good about Gyrfindor, but if there is anything its been removed. Get rid of the Hufflepuff line along with the Slytherin. Now which house would the hat put Harry into? Mike From lupinesque at yahoo.com Mon May 13 13:35:22 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 13:35:22 -0000 Subject: SHIP: H/H: Who's on top? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38703 Pippin wrote: > Harry will be > the center of attention as long as he remains part of the > wizarding world. IMO, it won't matter if Hermione gets elected > Minister of Magic, discovers the cure for dragonpox, wins the > Order of Merlin and chases a Snitch through London naked on a > broomstick at the age of 75. If H/H happens the Daily Prophet > will still bill her as Harry's partner. Somehow, I don't think she'd > be really happy about that Do you really think she'd care? I don't get the slightest idea that Hermione minds that her academic achievements pale in importance next to Harry's make-the-world-safe-for-wizarding adventures. As a matter of fact, he even points out their relative insignificance, not at all in an arrogant way and in a different context, in his Big Speech in PS/SS 16 ("D'you think he'll leave you and your families alone if Gryffindor win the House Cup?" etc.). She agrees "in a small voice." But to get back to the main issue, Hermione seems to take his fame in stride, neither envying it, resenting it, nor being proud of it. Who knows what they'll be like in 10 years--that's even in question with Ron, who plainly does envy Harry at times--but I see no indication thus far that Hermione feels competitive with Harry, other than waving her hand wildly when he's trying to answer questions in class , nor minds being billed as the girlfriend of the famous Harry Potter, other than its not being true. Amy From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon May 13 14:39:31 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 14:39:31 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Ron (SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38704 Penny said: > > Nope. I think Percy gets pegged as the "ambitious one." But, > IMO, that overlooks the fact that *all* of the Weasley males are > arguably ambitious, except perhaps for Arthur. Barb responded: But you're missing something here; when a Weasley really wants something, he grabs for it. What does Ron do? Skives off his homework, makes up Divination charts, crosses his fingers and hopes for the best in Potions and begs Hermione to copy her History of Magic essays. If being Head Boy were really his ambition, he'd be working toward that, which he clearly is not. What DO we see him working hard at? Finding out about the Philosopher's Stone, finding out about the Chamber of Secrets, helping Harry prepare for the second and third tasks of the Tournament. Are any of these things likely to get him fame and glory? No. Yet this is what he concentrates on. Who wouldn't like fame and glory? Sure, it would be nice. But you make him sound like a Slytherin. He toils in relative obscurity for the greater good and gets no notice for it. Wanting the RESULTS of the work is not the same thing at all. As I said, who wouldn't want to be rich? But when Ron says this it's rather pie-in-the-sky. It's a grass-is-always-greener attitude. Most people feel that way, regardless of how much ambition they >have. Naama: Yes!! Thanks Barb. I was struggling to formulate to myself the difference between ambition and Ron's longing for recognition and you got it bang on the head [if that's the right phrase?]. Penny argued with Pippin: > Moving on to Pippin: > > <<<<< He's not miserable because Harry got chosen Tri-wizard Champion, remember, but because he thinks Harry didn't take him into his confidence about it.>>>>>>> > > That's what Ron says. Hermione says that Ron's jealous of Harry's fame. I think Ron was angry that Harry got the opportunity to be a Tri-Wizard Champion even though he was 3 yrs too young. I don't think it's so much that Harry wasn't taking Ron into his confidence. At least that's not my spin on it. Barb replied: I have to agree with Pippin here. It's also consistent with Ron's biggest pet peeve--lack of loyalty. He feels it was disloyal of Harry not confide in him about both his intent to enter the Tournament and the method he used to accomplish it. I say: Well, I have to agree with Penny here. Hermione says that Ron doesn't really think that Harry lied to him; that what he is really jealous. The reader is clearly meant to accept this as the true explanation. Ron was jealous ? so bitter that he needed to manufacture a more acceptable cause on which to transfer his resentment. Barb: deliver those particular things.> Me: But surely if his deepest desire was to please his mother, this is what he would have seen in the Mirror? Molly hugging him, telling him he's her favorite, etc. What he sees is himself crowned with glory. I think we should accept this as is: Ron has a deep desire for more attention, recognition - the obverse side of which is his tendency to jealousy. It shouldn't be downplayed. I want to take the middle ground between Penny (downplaying Ron's unambitiousness) and Barb/Pippin (downplaying Ron's jealousy). Barb is right, IMO, that Ron is basically unambitious. OTOH, Penny is right that he has a deep longing for recognition and fame. This desire is Ron's weakness. He is dissatisfied with his lot, and therefore becomes rather easily jealous. To grow, he needs to strggles with it and overcome it. In this sense, his friendship with Harry is very good for him. Difficult, but good. It provides him with the difficult challenge of facing what he needs to face and overcome ? being in the shadow of somebody else. Because of his history, that is a difficult thing for him to handle. But he needs to free himself of this (psychological) bind his familial circumstances put him in, in order that he become the man he is meant to be. The possible R/H relationship I see as a similar challenge for Ron. I agree with Penny that Ron might feel jealous and bitter of Hermione outshining him. However, in the same way that Ron has overcome his envy of Harry, I believe that he will overcome his jealousy of his SO. Furthermore, (as I see it) it is an ADDED reason why R/H ship is healthy. He needs to get over, work through his jealousy issue. And if he needs to do that, having love on his side would help him in this inner struggle - the way his loyalty to Harry helped him to get over/work through his envy of him. Addendum: I think that JKR is generally painting good relationships as challenging, a bit disharmonious even. The Weasley home is full of bickering ? Molly with Fred and George, Molly with Arthur (well, Molly with everybody but Harry, actullay), the brothers between themselves. And yet, the Weasleys are meant to exemplify a very happy and "right" family. Interestingly, Vernon and Petunia, the paramdigmatic bad family, are always in agreement. Hermione, Ron and Harry are constantly arguing, fighting, offending one another, irritating one another. Yet they are meant to exemplify true friendship. It's Draco, Crabbe and Goyle who never argue (let alone bicker). To go even further, think how Voldemort completely dominates his followers. Dumbledore, on the other hand, is often engaged in explanations and arguments with his allies. So, for JKR, it seems that healthy relationships are "spicy" ? challenging in some ways, dynamic, even a bit turbulent [I clicked the thesaurus for "turbulent", and reached "riotous". It quite captures the essence of what I'm trying to describe.] She would probably join Barb in saying, "long live the bickering!" Naama From pennylin at swbell.net Mon May 13 18:21:09 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 13:21:09 -0500 Subject: Ron (just Ron ... no SHIP); Bickering References: Message-ID: <005101c1faaa$f4967550$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38705 Hi -- I said: all the Weasley males are ambitious. Barb responded: <<< What does Ron do? Skives off his homework, makes up Divination charts, crosses his fingers and hopes for the best in Potions and begs Hermione to copy her History of Magic essays. If being Head Boy were really his ambition, he'd be working toward that, which he clearly is not. Wanting the RESULTS of the work is not the same thing at all. As I said, who wouldn't want to be rich? But when Ron says this it's rather pie-in-the-sky. It's a grass-is-always-greener attitude. Most people feel that way, regardless of how much ambition they >have.>>>>>>>> Nope, I still disagree. Wanting the results *is* the very definition of ambition: Definition #1 -- "eagerness to attain success, honor, power, fame, etc." Definition #2 -- "an eager or strong desire to achieve something, such as fame or fortune" Under these definitions, I think it'd be hard to argue that Ron lacks ambition. The distinction that you're trying to draw Barb is between someone who has ambition (like Ron) and someone who is successful because they've acted on their ambitions. There are scores of people who are ambitious but unsuccessful, many of them are what I might call "dreamers." I completely agree that Ron does little or nothing toward remedying his desire for glory or riches. He obviously doesn't buy into the notion that academic success is the path to power &/or riches, like his brother Percy. But, he so far hasn't done much more than complain about being poor (and worried to himself about the success of all his brothers & his inability to distinguish himself). It's been argued before when this topic has come up before that Ron really can't have been expected to do too much at his age, but I note that at Ron's age, the Twins were obviously already taking affirmative steps toward a goal of their business (and money). As for the Slytherins, they might be more accurately described as enterprising (rather than ambitious) according to my dictionary, which says that ambitious & enterprising are synonyms "associated with desire for gain or higher station in life and suggest ruthlessness of means." RON'S MOTIVATION IN THE GOF FIGHT -- Naama, I *knew* we'd eventually agree on something! Naama argued on my side: <<<<>>>>> Yes, we the readers are supposed to believe that, and that's in fact what Harry & Hermione both believe. Note that Harry doesn't argue with Hermione about her interpretation, nor does he seem the least bit surprised really. He's *angry*.... but he's not surprised. Naama goes on to say: <<<<<>>>>>>>> Amen! Dumbledore observed that Ron has been overshadowed by his brothers and their successes his whole life long and that what he wants is to *stand out.* He wants recognition ... he wants *identity* as more than just the "youngest Weasley boy." He wants to be special, and I agree with Naama that this trait shouldn't be downplayed. I think he *is* special, and I think he's achieved a certain degree of "stand-out" success by his involvement in the final confrontations at the end of each year. But, *Ron* doesn't perceive this as anything special I don't think; I think he doesn't give himself enough credit for his role in these conflicts. <<<<<<>>>>>>>> Again, I don't think he's unambitious. He has ambition; he lacks motivation perhaps. He wants the results ... but doesn't really want to put forth much effort. Maybe that's another reason I'm not so keen on Ron really. I'd probably like him alot more if I thought he was actually working toward a goal instead of just grousing about his lot in life & not really taking affirmative steps to change anything. Naama commented on the use of disharmony & bickering in "good" relationships within the Potterverse: <<< So, for JKR, it seems that healthy relationships are "spicy" - challenging in some ways, dynamic, even a bit turbulent [I clicked the thesaurus for "turbulent", and reached "riotous". It quite captures the essence of what I'm trying to describe.] She would probably join Barb in saying, "long live the bickering!">>>>>>>> I haven't meant to suggest that I think all relationships should follow the Penny Model or that the Penny Model is spice-free. I can fully get behind challenging, dynamic, "spicy" and even riotous (though I draw the line at turbulent ... because it implies emotional ups & downs that I could frankly live without). But, I think I would find frequent (and certainly incessant) bickering as Harry does: tiresome & exhausting. But then I find arguing in all its forms to be exhausting. Now, that you point it out Naama, this may be one of the reasons I'm not a complete fan of Molly (the bickering with Arthur & her kids). It occurs to me that there may be another problem with semantics (possibly anyway). It seems to me that some people are defending bickering when they really mean bantering. Bickering means to squabble or engage in *petty* quarrels. Bantering, OTOH, is good-humored teasing, playful repartee. Repartee is a swift retort or a witty, spirited conversation. I'm completely in favor of banter & repartee ...but I don't think what Ron & Hermione are engaging in so far qualifies as repartee too awfully frequently. It more often is unpleasant & petty (JKR even uses words like squabble, quarrel, snap, retort, etc. when describing their interactions). Amy, in prefacing her excellent list of R/H interactions *other than* bickering, commented: <<<>>>>> Yes, my threshold for bickering is very low. Harry appears to find it distasteful on occasion but generally puts up with it. So, the question du jour: how do Ron & Hermione really feel about it? I guess we'll find out. More Amy: <<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>> Eek. I hope *I've* never implied that I don't think Ron & Hermione have a genuine friendship. I certainly think they do. I'm the one who's hugely offended when people try to say things like "Ron is more important to Harry than Hermione" for example. I *know* I've said this before: if asked to name his 2 best friends, it's clear Harry would name Ron and Hermione (and I don't think he'd even agree to prioritize them). If asked to name her 2 best friends, I'm sure Hermione would say Harry & Ron. And obviously Ron would name Harry & Hermione. I don't think there are any hierarchies of any sort within the Trio. Do you have another list of H/H interactions, Amy? What about Ha/R interactions? I've always wanted to go back through the books for things like this (and positive Percy moments -- ), but never seem to have time. Thanks for a great list! Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmmears at comcast.net Mon May 13 19:10:20 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 19:10:20 -0000 Subject: Ron (just Ron ... no SHIP); Bickering In-Reply-To: <005101c1faaa$f4967550$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38706 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: I haven't meant to suggest that I think all relationships should follow the Penny Model or that the Penny Model is spice-free. I can fully get behind challenging, dynamic, "spicy" and even riotous (though I draw the line at turbulent ... because it implies emotional ups & downs that I could frankly live without). But, I think I would find frequent (and certainly incessant) bickering as Harry does: tiresome & exhausting. Harry certainly does get sick of Ron & Hermione sniping at each other, and even goes to the Owlery to get away from it. The point, I think is that *Hermione* certainly doesn't seem to find it tiresome. In fact, the fact is that it takes two to bicker and since she is always just as engaged in it as Ron is, I've always gotten the impression that she finds it stimulating rather than upsetting. Penny: > Yes, my threshold for bickering is very low. Harry appears to find it distasteful on occasion but generally puts up with it. So, the question du jour: how do Ron & Hermione really feel about it? I guess we'll find out. Well, I've given my opinion on Hermione's feelings above. There's certainly no reason she couldn't just walk away from Ron when their arguments get heated. She never does, though, and it seems very important to her that she stay engaged in the conflict until it blows itself out. Hermione gives as good as she gets. Penny: I'm the one who's hugely offended when people try to say things like "Ron is more important to Harry than Hermione" for example. I *know* I've said this before: if asked to name his 2 best friends, it's clear Harry would name Ron and Hermione (and I don't think he'd even agree to prioritize them). If asked to name her 2 best friends, I'm sure Hermione would say Harry & Ron. And obviously Ron would name Harry & Hermione. I don't think there are any hierarchies of any sort within the Trio. But, but...Ron *is* more important to Harry when push comes to shove. I really don't want to "hugely offend" you but JKR makes it clear on two occasions in GoF, that if forced to choose, Harry would prefer Ron to Hermione. "Harry liked Hermione very much, but she just wasn't the same as Ron. There was much less laughter and a lot more hanging around in the library when Hermione was your best friend" GoF, Chapter 19 This clearly indicates that before their rift, Harry regards Ron as his *best* friend, and Hermione as one of his best friends. In the second task, of course, Ron is the one thing Harry will miss most. Now I suppose you could argue that Ron was chosen because Krum had already chosen Hermione, but I really think that since Fleur would miss her sister more than anything else, Ron functions as Harry's "brother". Cho and Hermione are there as 'girlfriends', and even though Harry had a fierce crush on Cho, he doesn't value her or anyone else quite as much as he does Ron. As much as we'd like it to be otherwise, friendships between three people never are exactly equal, are they? Hermione is certainly a very, very valuable friend to Harry and she's a hugely important part of the trio, but it seems to me that Harry values the laughter and fun he gets from Ron over the nurturing and nagging he gets from Hermione. Of course, Ron seems to value her in a *completely* different way from Harry, so I have to wonder who he would choose as his most valued friend, at the end of the day. Jo S. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon May 13 19:11:49 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 19:11:49 -0000 Subject: Ambition in the Wizarding World (WAS Ron (just Ron ... no SHIP); Bickering) In-Reply-To: <005101c1faaa$f4967550$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38707 Coming in late here, but better late than never, right? Right? :-) *********************** Penny wrote: > I said: all the Weasley males are ambitious. >Wanting the results *is* the very definition of ambition: > > Definition #1 -- "eagerness to attain success, honor, power, fame, etc." > > Definition #2 -- "an eager or strong desire to achieve something, such as fame or fortune" > > Under these definitions, I think it'd be hard to argue that Ron >lacks ambition. My dictionary has an additional definition of ambition: "A desire for exertion or activity." Hmmm. I think it's a tough sale to say that Ron is ambitious. Ron, rather than striving toward something, just wants things. Better yet, he wants them handed to him, and the only effort he's willing to put forth at times is to hold out his hand. So count me among those who think Ron has an eager or strong *desire* for things like fame or fortune, but lacks a desire to put in the effort to *achieve* these things. Oh, I know I'm being hard on Ron. And I'm not saying he doesn't have positive qualities. Deciding not to be ambitious is fine, really. I'm just having trouble with the idea that he is ambitious because he dreams of distinguishing himself but takes few steps to make it happen. That said, it is really no surprise, is it? The wizarding world doesn't seem keen on ambition, does it? Let's see. Who are our most ambitious characters? 1. Crouch Jr. When he is about to kill Harry, he says, "Imagine how he will reward me when he finds I have done it for him." 2. Hermione. A hard-working student who is definitely ambitious, but is often mocked by her peers and even a teacher (Snape) despite her knowledge and skills. 3. Fudge. Dumbledore believes his ambition has blinded him: "You are blinded . . . by the love of the office you hold, Cornelius!" 4. Real Moody. Sirius says, "If you ask me, he still thinks he can bring back the old popularity by catching one more Death Eater." 5. Percy. Again, another hard-working character who is ridiculed for his ambition. 6. Crouch Sr. Lost everything due to ambition. 7. Vernon Dursley. His ambition to close a lucrative sale is viewed with derision. 8. Voldemort. I have a hunch, and it's just a hunch really, that Voldemort is a *teeny bit* ambitious. 9. Lucius Malfoy, Amos Diggory, Karkaroff. Fathers or father figures who urge their sons or male proteges to be ambitious or competitive are not viewed favorably. 10. MacNair. Yeah, he seems to be willing to go the extra mile to behead something. On the other hand, we have characters like Dumbledore, who could be Minister of Magic but chooses not to pursue it. Or like Arthur Weasley, who probably could do more to obtain a higher position at MoM but who chooses not to. Or the twins, who mostly seem to be able to muster ambition when doing something against the rules (figuring out the Map, crossing the Age line). Or Hagrid, who is pleased as punch to win the CoMC job but doesn't seem to really do all he can to make the most of the position. These characters are viewed as noble for lacking ambition to some extent. Then we have the curious middle. We have Snape, who supposedly covets the DADA position, but many on this list don't believe the rumor. Is Snape ambitious? I have my own views based on certain views about why Snape became a DE, but I'm not sure we've really reached much of a consensus there. Cindy (who lacks an opinion about whether Trelawney or McGonagall are ambitious, and suspects JKR lacks an opinion as well) From bbennett at joymail.com Mon May 13 19:48:32 2002 From: bbennett at joymail.com (bbennett320178) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 19:48:32 -0000 Subject: Ron and Hermione friendship In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38708 > David wrote: > We need Amy's list. > Amy wrote: > Your wish is my command. >Is this the way a writer would portray a relationship between two people whose only connection was their friendship with a third? I don't see how JKR could make it much clearer that Ron and Hermione are friends in their own right. They spend too much time voluntarily in one another's company-not just to be with Harry, but just being together even when he isn't around-and have too wide a variety of pleasant interactions for their relationship to be less than genuine friendship.> In addition to saying that Amy is my new favorite person, I just wanted to comment that it seems to me that many readers see Hermione as a 'victim' of sorts in the arguments with Ron (I don't mean in connection with the current discussion, as I haven't had the opportunity to read all of the posts, but in general). Hermione has always struck me as the type who enjoys having her ideas challenged, if for no other reason that it gives her the opportunity to prove herself right. Like many of us on this list, I don't think Hermione would bother 'giving back' to Ron if she wasn't on some level enjoying herself in the process. B From nobradors at hotmail.com Sat May 11 22:33:18 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?N=FAria_Obradors_Pi?=) Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 19:33:18 -0300 Subject: TBAY: ToadKeeper Meets Reverse Memory Charm Neville/Ghosts & Poltergeist References: <1021101845.857.54142.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38709 Raven quoted cindysphynx: <> I do like this theory. In fact, IIRC there's no evidence in canon that Neville has a memory charm cast on him. However, given that he was indeed a toddler when his parents were crucio'd, it is more likely a Reverse Memory Charm had been used on him (this is what we Muggles call Regressive Hypnosis!) Then Raven wrote: >>>I just couldn't help wondering, if Harry can relive the deaths of his parents that occurred when he was 15 months old, isn't it quite possible Neville could have similar memories even without magical assistance? Granted, it could be that Harry is extra-special in this regard as in others, but OTOH it could be common in the wizarding world for memories, especially traumatic ones, to persist from infancy.<<<< Not only in the wizarding world. My oldest memory (I'm 27y.o.) is a nightmare I had when I was about 18 months old, and it's a vivid memory. I can tell the time because I remember waking up and my dad giving me my pacifyer- which I stopped using before I was 2. So yes, you can recall things that happened to you at a very early age, specially if they're traumatic. Perhaps Neville's forgetfulness comes from fear to remember - cause what he does remember is ever so painful. **** Cindy Sphynx wrote: > Now, ghosts aren't my specialty, so forgive me if I mess this up. I > get the sense, however, that ghosts and poltergeists can act on > their surroundings. Throwing water balloons and such. Stealing the > egg of a champion (no, Peeves didn't do this, but Filch thought he > could). And Cat Lady added: >>>>Peeves the poltergeist can act on his surroundings as you mention -- The ghosts have very limited ability to act on their surroundings This is another evidence that poltergeists are not ghosts, besides the bit in the first appearance of the ghosts at the Arrival Feast in SS: "My dear Friar, haven't we given Peeves all the chances he deserves? He gives us all a bad name and you know, he's not really even a ghost -- I say, what are you all doing here?"<<<< I'd like to add my two knuts. please note that I'm no expert either! Ghosts are the spirits of dead people who can't pass to whatever other side that is (please note that I don't intend to create any debate in how much the same thing "spirit" and "soul" are - I just had to use a word for naming it somehow). When a ghost appears, it's usually because the person it once was died in a violent or distressful way, leaving things pendant in his or her life (The movie "Casper" explained this pretty well if you ask me). Ghosts can manifest themselves in many ways, from a presence one can only infer to so very realistically they even look and feel solid. Poltergeist, OTOH, are spirits who behave as Peeves does: causing havoc and wrecking things around them. As far as I know, they can be ghosts or not. Some other invisible form, maybe? Nuri I From nobradors at hotmail.com Mon May 13 20:11:09 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?N=FAria_Obradors_Pi?=) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:11:09 -0300 Subject: TBAY: ToadKeeper Meets Reverse Memory Charm Neville/Ghosts & Poltergeist References: <1021101845.857.54142.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38710 Raven quoted cindysphynx: <> I do like this theory. In fact, IIRC there's no evidence in canon that Neville has a memory charm cast on him. However, given that he was indeed a toddler when his parents were crucio'd, it is more likely a Reverse Memory Charm had been used on him (this is what we Muggles call Regressive Hypnosis!) Then Raven wrote: >>>I just couldn't help wondering, if Harry can relive the deaths of his parents that occurred when he was 15 months old, isn't it quite possible Neville could have similar memories even without magical assistance? Granted, it could be that Harry is extra-special in this regard as in others, but OTOH it could be common in the wizarding world for memories, especially traumatic ones, to persist from infancy.<<<< Not only in the wizarding world. My oldest memory (I'm 27y.o.) is a nightmare I had when I was about 18 months old, and it's a vivid memory. I can tell the time because I remember waking up and my dad giving me my pacifyer- which I stopped using before I was 2. So yes, you can recall things that happened to you at a very early age, specially if they're traumatic. Perhaps Neville's forgetfulness comes from fear to remember - cause what he does remember is ever so painful. **** Cindy Sphynx wrote: > Now, ghosts aren't my specialty, so forgive me if I mess this up. I > get the sense, however, that ghosts and poltergeists can act on > their surroundings. Throwing water balloons and such. Stealing the > egg of a champion (no, Peeves didn't do this, but Filch thought he > could). And Cat Lady added: >>>>Peeves the poltergeist can act on his surroundings as you mention -- The ghosts have very limited ability to act on their surroundings This is another evidence that poltergeists are not ghosts, besides the bit in the first appearance of the ghosts at the Arrival Feast in SS: "My dear Friar, haven't we given Peeves all the chances he deserves? He gives us all a bad name and you know, he's not really even a ghost -- I say, what are you all doing here?"<<<< I'd like to add my two knuts. please note that I'm no expert either! Ghosts are the spirits of dead people who can't pass to whatever other side that is (please note that I don't intend to create any debate in how much the same thing "spirit" and "soul" are - I just had to use a word for naming it somehow). When a ghost appears, it's usually because the person it once was died in a violent or distressful way, leaving things pendant in his or her life (The movie "Casper" explained this pretty well if you ask me). Ghosts can manifest themselves in many ways, from a presence one can only infer to so very realistically they even look and feel solid. Poltergeist, OTOH, are spirits who behave as Peeves does: causing havoc and wrecking things around them. As far as I know, they can be ghosts or not. Some other invisible form, maybe? Nuri I From jmmears at comcast.net Mon May 13 20:08:56 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 20:08:56 -0000 Subject: Ambition in the Wizarding World (WAS Ron (just Ron ... no SHIP); Bickering) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38711 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > That said, it is really no surprise, is it? The wizarding world > doesn't seem keen on ambition, does it? Let's see. Who are our > most ambitious characters? 4. Real Moody. Sirius says, "If you ask me, he still thinks he can > bring back the old popularity by catching one more Death Eater." Er, Cindy, I believe that Sirius is referring to Crouch,Sr when he makes this statement. "'Moody says Crouch is obsessed with catching Dark wizards,' Harry told Sirius. 'Yeah, I've heard it's become a bit of a mania with him,' said Sirius, nodding. 'If you ask me, he still thinks he can bring back the old popularity by catching one more Death Eater.'" GoF Chapter 27 Cindy: . These characters are > viewed as noble for lacking ambition to some extent. I think you're on to something here. Do you think that this reflects JKR's feelings concerning fiercely ambitious people. She certainly seems to favor the characters who don't seem to be striving too hard to achieve some material or status-related goal. Hermione's ambition doesn't seem to be in that category, though. She's only striving for pure knowledge for it's own sake, not to gain power over others (although she certainly craves recognition for her academic achievements, doesn't she?), and Rowling seems to respect that. It's very possible that her political leanings are reflected in the fact that the most ambitious characters in her books seem to be mostly headed for trouble (so far). Jo S From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 13 20:35:51 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 20:35:51 -0000 Subject: Hermione and Ron (SHIP) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38712 I said, of Ron: > > <<<<< He's not miserable because Harry got chosen Tri-wizard Champion, remember, but because he thinks Harry didn't take him into his confidence about it.>>>>>>> To which Penny countered: > > > > That's what Ron says. Hermione says that Ron's jealous of Harry's fame. I think Ron was angry that Harry got the opportunity to be a Tri-Wizard Champion even though he was 3 yrs too young. I don't think it's so much that Harry wasn't taking Ron into his confidence. At least that's not my spin on it. <<< Naama supported Penny: >>>>Hermione says that Ron doesn't really think that Harry lied to him; that what he is really jealous. The reader is clearly meant to accept this as the true explanation. Ron was jealous ? so bitter that he needed to manufacture a more acceptable cause on which to transfer his resentment. <<<< > Well, we were meant to accept that Snape was trying to murder Harry and that Draco was the Heir of Slytherin, also. GoF differs from the other books in that it leaves quite a few open issues besides what Voldemort will try next. I agree with Penny that the extent of Ron's jealousy is one of them. Yes, he's jealous, but jealousy may not prove to be the only reason he didn't back down. A lot of it could be sheer stubbornness, mirroring Hermione's stubbornness over the Scabbers/Crookshanks debacle. He also may have been reacting to the way Hermione sneers at all the people who hang on Krum. Perhaps, subconsciously, he wanted an excuse to break with Harry so as to show himself (or her) that he isn't just a sycophant. Hermione's record on relating other people's motives to actions is not stellar. She's been wrong about Snape, Malfoy, Lockhart and Lupin, to name a few. Clearly we are being set up to wonder how far Ron's jealousy might drive him. I think, though, that we will eventually discover Hermione was being a bit simplistic (again). It's just her guess that Ron was only jealous: careful reading reveals that he didn't tell her so, and that she is not about to discuss it with him. Possibly Hermione fastened on jealousy because she's projecting a little? She's the one who seems fascinated with famous wizards, and who colors or weeps whenever she is praised. I said: >>>If H/H happens the Daily Prophet will still bill her as Harry's partner. Somehow, I don't think she'd be really happy about that <<<<<<< Amy asked: >>>>> Do you really think she'd care? I don't get the slightest idea that Hermione minds that her academic achievements pale in importance next to Harry's make-the-world-safe-for-wizarding adventures.<<<< The context was whether Hermione's fame would serve to shield Harry from his, and I was explaining why I didn't think that would happen. Hermione understands that what Harry's doing right now is more important than "books and cleverness". After Hogwarts, once the WW is well and truly saved, I think it might bother her if her achievements continued to be overshadowed by her association with Harry, particularly if Harry were more or less retired from public life. It would be like being the SO of a Beatle. You'd never know whether your accomplishments were being recognized for their own sake. > > Switching lastly & briefly to Dave, who said: > > <<<<< realise that what he believes intellectually about elves, giants > etc. contradicts what is in practice his positive and open outlook > (as I see it) towards other individuals. He is partially aware of > it over Hagrid. If he does relaise it he could move a lot closer to > Hermione's position on those issues.>>>>>>>>> > I think Hermione and Ron are already lots closer on this than they think they are. They both care passionately about injustice. Ron is just as indignant about Sirius and the injustice done to Buckbeak as she is. In the House Elf case, the argument is really about the facts. Ron thinks, from everything he's heard, that most House Elves are well off as they are. Hermione thinks, from everything she's read, that they can't be. Neither of them have thought to ask the House Elves what *they* think. Hermione is, IMO, very dismissive of them, calling them "brainwashed and uneducated" . Ron and Hermione both have to struggle against prejudices they've picked up from the culture. "Don't trust him...he's a werewolf!" is *Hermione's* line. It's no wonder Ron rolls his eyes when Hermione later announces loftily that people's opinions about werewolves and giants are just prejudice--he's reacting to her self righteousness, not just her position. PIppin From pennylin at swbell.net Mon May 13 20:38:23 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 15:38:23 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron (just Ron ... no SHIP); Bickering References: Message-ID: <008901c1fabe$204900b0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38713 Hi -- Jo Serenadust said: <<<>>> Well, yes, she may indeed find it stimulating. Then again, it might take on an entirely different dynamic if she were romantically involved with Ron. Right now she's just sparring with a good buddy. This could go either way IMO. I said: <<<<>>> Jo Serenadust responded: <<<>>>>> :::screams::: No, no, no! :--) I so don't agree with this assessment. Of course, she's not the *same* as Ron; she's a girl. And when you're a 14-year old boy who's not too keen on studying in the first place, you'd naturally miss your best male buddy who knows all the Quidditch terms & wants to spend time outdoors instead of cooped up in a library. That doesn't mean that if he was point-blank asked: are you better friends with Ron or with Hermione, that'd he say "Ron." Also, more importantly, *much, much* more importantly: Harry did in effect answer that question at the bottom of the Lake during the 2nd Task. *************** He turned back to Hermione, raised the jagged rock and began to hack at her bindings, too -- At once, several pairs of strong grey hands seized him. Half-a-dozen mermen were pulling him away from Hermione, shaking their green-haired heads and laughing. "You take your own hostage," one of them said to him. "Leave the others --" "No way!" said Harry furiously -- but only two large bubbles came out. "Your task is to retrieve your own friend ... leave the others...." "*She's* my friend, too!' Harry yelled, gesturing towards Hermione, an enormous silver bubble emerging soundlessly from his lips. ************************** I will *never, ever, ever* buy the argument that Harry values Ron more than Hermione unless & until JKR specifically confirms this in a chat or writes it in a clear & unambiguous way into one of the next novels. Likewise, I would *never, ever* believe that any of them would prioritize their friendships within the Trio. The friendships & such *will* change if an inter-Trio romance develops or tries to develop & fails; that will certainly change the dynamic. But, until then, I remain very opposed to the notion that Hermione is in effect a secondary member of the Trio. In fact, if you say that Harry & Ron would both put her as their "2nd" best friend, you're in effect saying that there is no Trio really. There are 2 best friends who also both count this studious girl with bushy hair as a good friend, but not a best friend. I can't agree with that. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Mon May 13 20:44:51 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 13:44:51 -0700 Subject: Is Harry ambitious? was Re: [HPforGrownups] Ambition in the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4752642740.20020513134451@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38714 Hi, Monday, May 13, 2002, 12:11:49 PM, cindysphynx wrote: > And I'm not saying he doesn't have positive qualities. Deciding not > to be ambitious is fine, really. I'm just having trouble with the > idea that he is ambitious because he dreams of distinguishing > himself but takes few steps to make it happen. > That said, it is really no surprise, is it? The wizarding world > doesn't seem keen on ambition, does it? Let's see. Who are our > most ambitious characters? Hm, how ambitious is Harry, compared to Ron? Mostly, he already has the talent, and only needs a little help to bring it out. Hermione certainly works hard, but does Harry? Things happen to him, and he finds out he has many talents/abilities that help him out in those circumstances, but I don't really see him work very hard to make them happen. In GoF, he doesn't really work all that hard on his tasks (though fear may have more to do with that) and would have never made it without many peoples' help (IMO). It's possible the other competitors had the same amount of help. I don't have time to re-read those sections right now. Yes, he can fight the Imperius curse, but it was relatively easy for him, because of..., I guess we'll find out more about this in later books . And he does work on learning the Patronus Charm, but why don't any of the teacher try to help other students out with special charms? Sure, Harry needs it the most, but other students could certainly benefit from it, too. Maybe Harry really *isn't* the only one who could do it. I actually think many students might be envious of Harry because he is given a lot more things/attention than any other student at Hogwarts (for a reason, of course, but they may not see it that way). The sorting hat says that Harry has "a nice thirst to prove himself", but I don't really see him go out of his way to do this. Mostly he just takes the easy route, and only when it comes down to the grind he shows he can work hard (and so does Ron at these times). -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From jmmears at comcast.net Mon May 13 21:40:29 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 21:40:29 -0000 Subject: Ron (just Ron ... no SHIP); Bickering In-Reply-To: <008901c1fabe$204900b0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38715 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > Hi -- > > Jo Serenadust said: I've always > gotten the impression that she finds it stimulating rather than > upsetting.>>>> Penny wrote: > Well, yes, she may indeed find it stimulating. Then again, it might take on an entirely different dynamic if she were romantically involved with Ron. Right now she's just sparring with a good buddy. This could go either way IMO. I'm glad we can at least agree on this point :--). So often it seems that people blame Ron for the bickering as it he were *inflicting* it on poor, victimized Hermione. She's just as feisty as he is. More Penny: > I said: <<<< *know* I've said this before: if asked to name his 2 best friends, > it's clear Harry would name Ron and Hermione (and I don't think he'd > even agree to prioritize them). If asked to name her 2 best > friends, I'm sure Hermione would say Harry & Ron. And obviously Ron > would name Harry & Hermione. I don't think there are any > hierarchies of any sort within the Trio.>>>> > Jo Serenadust responded: > > <<< shove. I really don't want to "hugely offend" you but JKR makes it > clear on two occasions in GoF, that if forced to choose, Harry would > prefer Ron to Hermione. > "Harry liked Hermione very much, but she just wasn't the same as > Ron. There was much less laughter and a lot more hanging around in > the library when Hermione was your best friend" GoF, Chapter 19 > > This clearly indicates that before their rift, Harry regards Ron as > his *best* friend, and Hermione as one of his best friends. In the > second task, of course, Ron is the one thing Harry will miss most.>>>>>> Penny reacted as I feared : > :::screams::: > > No, no, no! :--) > > I so don't agree with this assessment. Of course, she's not the *same* as Ron; she's a girl. And when you're a 14-year old boy who's not too keen on studying in the first place, you'd naturally miss your best male buddy who knows all the Quidditch terms & wants to spend time outdoors instead of cooped up in a library. That doesn't mean that if he was point-blank asked: are you better friends with Ron or with Hermione, that'd he say "Ron." > > Also, more importantly, *much, much* more importantly: Harry did in effect answer that question at the bottom of the Lake during the 2nd Task. > > *************** > > > He turned back to Hermione, raised the jagged rock and began to hack at her bindings, too -- > > At once, several pairs of strong grey hands seized him. Half-a- dozen mermen were pulling him away from Hermione, shaking their green-haired heads and laughing. > > "You take your own hostage," one of them said to him. "Leave the others --" > > "No way!" said Harry furiously -- but only two large bubbles came out. > > "Your task is to retrieve your own friend ... leave the others...." > > "*She's* my friend, too!' Harry yelled, gesturing towards Hermione, an enormous silver bubble emerging soundlessly from his lips. Easy, easy, girl. Deeeep cleansing breaths.... that's right. Of course, Harry says she's his friend and she is. Being Harry, he'd never leave her down there just to win the task if he thought Krum wouldn't make it in time. However, he also saves Cho and Gabrielle ( who he doesn't know from Adam's housecat) when it seems that they will not be rescued in time. Harry is a hero; that's what he does. I never meant to imply that he doesn't value Hermione very much as his friend. I would venture to say that if Harry were asked point-blank to choose which one was his better friend, he would of course, decline to answer. Still, I maintain that from the very start, Harry has had a natural bond with Ron that is unique. Since he never in his life had any sort of friend, Ron's reaching out to him on the train was a real turning point in his life (just as important IMO, as finding out that he is a wizard). Ron's generosity in sharing his knowledge of the wizarding world, as well as his own family is probably the most precious thing in Harry's life, and he's almost bereft during the time when he and Ron are on the outs. OTOH, when he and Ron are ticked off at Hermione during the Firebolt incident in PoA, he probably misses her, but doesn't seem to be in as much pain about her absence from his life during that period as he is about the Firebolt being confiscated. Penny continues: > > I will *never, ever, ever* buy the argument that Harry values Ron more than Hermione unless & until JKR specifically confirms this in a chat or writes it in a clear & unambiguous way into one of the next novels. Likewise, I would *never, ever* believe that any of them would prioritize their friendships within the Trio. The friendships & such *will* change if an inter-Trio romance develops or tries to develop & fails; that will certainly change the dynamic. But, until then, I remain very opposed to the notion that Hermione is in effect a secondary member of the Trio. In fact, if you say that Harry & Ron would both put her as their "2nd" best friend, you're in effect saying that there is no Trio really. There are 2 best friends who also both count this studious girl with bushy hair as a good friend, but not a best friend. I can't agree with that. > Well, I really doubt that JKR will ever specifically confirm that Harry values Ron more than Hermione in either chat or text because I can't imagine that ever being necessary. I'm sure it would be excruciating for any member of the trio to "reject" one in favor of another and I hope I didn't imply that this would happen. (I also hope that no inter-trio romantic triangle develops -- what a cheap, cheesy development that would be) It's just that the way I read the books, Harry and Ron would have been friends, whether Hermione existed or not. Their relationship was firmly established early in SS/PS when they still couldn't stand her. I don't see anything to indicate that either Harry or Ron would have been friends with Hermione without their prior friendship with each other. For all intents and purposes, the three of them are "best" friends, regardless of how they came to be so. It's just that from Harry's POV, he just plain has more fun with, and more in common with Ron, and since his life has been completely fun-deprived before meeting Ron, he tends to enjoy the time spent exclusively with Ron, or with Ron *and* Hermione, more than he does the time spent with Hermione alone. Does that help clarify things? Do you feel any better now? Didn't think so. Sorry, Jo S., calling 'em like she sees them From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon May 13 21:42:45 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 21:42:45 -0000 Subject: Ambition in the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38716 I wrote: > > 4. Real Moody. Sirius says, "If you ask me, he still thinks he > can > > bring back the old popularity by catching one more Death Eater." Jo wrote: > Er, Cindy, I believe that Sirius is referring to Crouch,Sr when he > makes this statement. > "'Moody says Crouch is obsessed with catching Dark wizards,' Harry > told Sirius. > 'Yeah, I've heard it's become a bit of a mania with him,' said > Sirius, nodding. 'If you ask me, he still thinks he can bring back > the old popularity by catching one more Death Eater.'" GoF Chapter 27 Ouch! Shot in the face with my own canon! Those darn pronouns will get you every time. What a mess! Yup, Jo is right. OK, then. Ah yes. Eh, maybe it's a stretch, but Sirius mentions Moody's ambition as well: "I wouldn't put it past Mad-Eye to have searched every single teacher's office when he got to Hogwarts. He takes his Defense Against the Dark Arts seriously, Moody." And Real Moody shows us some ambition in the Pensieve: "Took me six months to track him down. . . " There. No pronouns. :-) Susanne adds: > Hm, how ambitious is Harry, compared to Ron? > Mostly, he already has the talent, and only needs a little > help to bring it out. > > Hermione certainly works hard, but does Harry? > > Things happen to him, and he finds out he has many > talents/abilities that help him out in those circumstances, > but I don't really see him work very hard to make them > happen. Harry seems at the mid-point between Ron and Hermione on the question of ambition. When Harry needs to take care of a problem, there is no limit to how hard he'll work at it. Learning to Summon. Learning to resist Imperius. Learning the Patronus charm. Studying all night to prepare for the second task. Practicing Quiddich at all hours and in all weather. Working hard to win the Third Task. Winning the duel with Voldemort (well, maybe that doesn't count because Harry was motivated by not wishing to *die* right then). Harry seems to pull it together under pressure and coast the rest of the time. What is that, exactly? Should we call it Transient Ambition? Task-Oriented Ambition? Adolescent Ambition? ;-) Jo again: > Do you think that this reflects > JKR's feelings concerning fiercely ambitious people. She certainly > seems to favor the characters who don't seem to be striving too hard > to achieve some material or status-related goal. Hmmm. Maybe. If so, this runs contrary to her own press clippings, in which she was portrayed as the single mother desperately writing a book at the local coffee shop. But maybe this is just a common way to treat ambition in fiction dealing with a struggle between good and evil. I mean, Evil Overlords are almost ambitious by definition -- they want to rule the world. It's all or nothing for them -- they won't be happy just having a lot of influence or changing society at the margins. So perhaps writers (and JKR) have the Good Guys be less ambitious for contrast and conflict and to cast them as the underdog? That said, the Good Guys always seem to find some major ambition from somewhere when the situation demands it -- like while battling it out on a rickety catwalk over a river of molten lava. ;-) Cindy (who would be ambitious about a great many things if there weren't so much darn *work* involved) From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk Mon May 13 22:06:49 2002 From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (catorman) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:06:49 -0000 Subject: Ron (just Ron ... no SHIP); Bickering In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38717 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" wrote: > > <<< > shove. I really don't want to "hugely offend" you but JKR makes it > > clear on two occasions in GoF, that if forced to choose, Harry > would > > prefer Ron to Hermione. In the > > second task, of course, Ron is the one thing Harry will miss > most.>>>>>> OK, about time I forced myself out of lurkdom and weighed in here, because I share very similar views on Ron to Penny, and wanted to make a really annoying, nitpicky, LOON-y point. According to canon, Ron is *not* the one thing that Harry will miss the most. The line in the song is: "We've taken what you'll sorely miss," not, what he would miss the most. The "miss most" line came from Dobby, who heard this second hand: "The thing Harry Potter will miss most, sir!" As far as this task is concerned, it is very convenient that Krum has feelings for Hermione. If this relationship wasn't apparent to the staff at Hogwarts, Hermione would surely have been in the running for being what Harry sorely missed, and they would have had to choose between her and Ron. It would have been very interesting to see what perceptions of their relationship JKR gives to the other Hogwarts residents. However, I always felt that JKR was very clever in this sequence, because she allows us to speculate upon what Harry would have done in different circumstances - I've always wondered - if Dobby hadn't made it clear to Harry that he was supposed to rescue Ron, would he automatically have gone for Ron first in the Lake? Of course, it wouldn't take Harry long to come to the conclusion that Hermione must be there for Krum to rescue, but in the split second before he thought that through, who would he have gone for - Ron or Hermione? In other words, what where would his instinct have led him? Catherine From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon May 13 22:19:05 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:19:05 -0000 Subject: Ron: ambition, bickering, SHIP Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38718 From: Penny Linsenmayer pennylin at swbell.net I see now I'm well behind - the penalty of using digests to minimise hotel phone bills, but I'll post this anyway and come back later, as AFAICS it's still relevant. I'll just chip in on Barb's arguments. >Ron -- Again, he *is* ambitious IMO. I'm in broad agreement with Barb that Ron isn't really ambitious: he complains and expresses desire, but I would see it as a fairly fundamental characteristic of ambitious people that they take steps to realise their ambitions, and, by and large, Ron doesn't. However, this argument may miss your point, which I believe is that Ron would resent a successful Hermione if he himself has nothing to show. He might then start to berate himself (or her) for his *lack* of ambition. It would depend on the kind of success Hermione has. I agree that Ron does lack a sense of the foundation of his value (despite all that has been written about his loving family), and as long as that is the case, he is likely to be a bad partner for anyone (I am a firm disbeliever in the notion that poor self worth can be compensated for, or cured, by the right relationship. I think it has to be sorted out first.). However, it is obvious (nasty word that) to me that Ron is indeed worthy of being valued - indeed his presence in the narrative is possibly primarily to counter the notion that value depends on what your gifts are or what you contribute to an enterprise. OTOH, if Hermione is destined to land the coveted position of her SO, then she is in for a rough ride, if that person is human. That would place a strain on any relationship, whichever partner did the landing. Now my arguments: Penny said: <<<<> I think bickering is the defining characteristic of their relationship; it's how they interact.>>>> I said: ><<<<<<<>>>>>>>>> >I don't think this entirely something we can settle by just consulting canon. What I interpret as bickering may differ markedly from what is bickering as far as you're concerned. I think it's a subjective thing in the end. If the subjectivity is in the definition of bickering, then we should be able to go back to the books and look at their behaviour, whatever we call it. However, I suspect that the important subjective element is in the templates of human personality we use to interpret the words on JKR's page. I think it is these templates, which arise from our own lives and our other reading, that influence differing interpretations of statements like 'I hate being poor'. (As an aside, that incident is interesting because it jolts Hermione out of her normal agenda of improving him - she (and Harry) is silenced in the face of a problem too big for them.) However, let's have a go. If bickering is the 'defining characteristic', I understand that to mean that when they see each other, the primary thing they see is the areas of disagreement. As an extreme, it might mean that each of them adopts the views they do, simply because they believe the other has the opposite view - I take it this is not what is understood. More plausibly, whenever they are together, they choose topics for discussion because they know those topics will antagonise the other and cause an argument. That is harder to refute, because I think it is true that it is a running sore for each of them that the other has given so little ground in the areas where they do disagree, but I still think that the reason they return to these sore points is because they want the satisfaction of knowing the other thinks their opinion counts. In that respect there is a parallel between Draco's vulnerability to Hermione and Hermione's vulnerabilty to Ron: they want to win, and the more of themselves they engage in winning, the more they are engaging themselves in their opponent. (Also R to H, but nobody questions that, AFAIK.) I believe that their opposing opinions fill a large part of their daily interaction, but at moments of crisis or revelation, other considerations bulk larger. Again, the parallel with Draco is illuminating: so far, crisis has put him on the opposite side, at least nominally. David From pennylin at swbell.net Mon May 13 22:37:08 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 17:37:08 -0500 Subject: Ron & Hermione: Equal Best Friends or Not? References: Message-ID: <009b01c1face$b7403550$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38719 Hi -- Many thanks to Catherine for pointing out the LOON-y detail regarding the wording in the 2nd Task. You're quite right; it's Dobby who adds in the adjective "most." happily at Catherine Interesting question regarding what might have happened if Krum hadn't been dating Hermione and/or if Dobby hadn't mentioned Ron specifically to Harry before the 2nd Task began. Very interesting. Jo Serenadust argues that Harry values Hermione as a friend but has a "unique" bond with Ron: Well, sure, it's a unique bond. You're right to note that Ron approached Harry and is his first real friendship. They're also both boys and so share commonalities, including soon after they meet an interest in Quidditch which Harry picks up readily. <<>>> Harry suffers from inertia in this incident IMO. He does miss her, and he does recognize that she was only trying to help. He does make overtures to Hermione, and he asks Ron "can't you cut her a break?" at one point. But, he doesn't take *strong* action to intercede in the Ron/Hermione quarrel. This is in keeping with Harry's general personality though, and I don't think it should be a reflection on how he values Hermione. <<>>> Did I misunderstand your point then? I thought your point was that Ron is Harry's *best friend,* and that Hermione was something less than that. <<<(I also hope that no inter-trio romantic triangle develops -- what a cheap, cheesy development that would be)>>> Well, I've already pointed out numerous works of great literature (well, works of literature that many people consider to be great, classics) that have used love triangles to great effect. But, I suppose it won't appeal to everyone. I, after all, can't stomach any variant of OBHWF. :--) <<>> And, the point is ......? Yeah, Harry & Ron became friends first. I don't think that makes Hermione forevermore an interloper or 2nd class friend as a result. I also thought later, after posting my first message, that Harry does consistently refer to Hermione as his "other best friend." JKR obviously, IMHO, thinks that Hermione is on the same friendship level as Ron for Harry. <<<>>>>>>> Well, sure, he's only 14. He wants to talk about Quidditch and goof off and play chess and do things Hermione in general has no interest in. All I'm saying is that it's perfectly natural for a 14-yr old boy to prefer to hang out with "the guys." But, when he thinks about who his best friends are, he always includes Ron and Hermione equally. As the kids mature, I'm confident Harry will appreciate Hermione's strengths as much as Ron's fun. Penny also calling 'em as she sees them -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon May 13 22:37:53 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:37:53 -0000 Subject: Bickering - offlist (not bickering offlist!) In-Reply-To: <005101c1faaa$f4967550$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38720 Penny Spice wrote: >But then I find arguing in all its forms to be exhausting. Oh dear! Do you want five minutes or the full half hour? David From paul_a_wright at hotmail.com Mon May 13 19:14:53 2002 From: paul_a_wright at hotmail.com (Paul Wright) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 20:14:53 +0100 Subject: Madam Hooch & Flying Lessons Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38721 Hello all, I'm new to the HP online world and such like, so excuse if what I am to ask is ignorant in someway, I've read through most of the Lexicon and FAQ and haven't yet found an aswer. What I want to know is not what Madam Hooch does for the 364 days she isn't holding her only flying lesson, but what happened to the Gryffs after their ill fated lesson. The last we saw in the book/film is Harry being taken off to see Wood after Neville breaks his wrist. Did the lesson continue, or did that year end up with no flying training at all? I'm sure that was a pretty nit-picky question but it's being bugging me. If I broke some rules go easy on me, I'm new ;-) Paul Wright - ICQ 38986089 - MSN paul_a_wright at hotmail.com - AIM paulalanwright -- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Mon May 13 22:55:21 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:55:21 -0000 Subject: Oops! ; Prioritising friendship Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38722 Not OoP. Sorry about that - that message was just meant for Penny. It very nearly did go to OT. While I'm here, I don't buy the argument either that the fact that Harry finds companionship with Hermione alone relatively dull means that he, however so slightly, prefers Ron: a) being with Hermione only reminds him that he is without Ron - that is bound to put a damper on him; b) we just don't have a comparative situation where he has He but not R - in POA he is more on Ron's side but he is in the middle to some extent. He is not forced to spend time with Ron because he has fallen out with Hermione - Harry has never truly fallen out with her. It's not hard to imagine that if Hermione was refusing to talk to him he would also find Ron relatively dull. David From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon May 13 22:45:38 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:45:38 -0000 Subject: Is Harry ambitious? was Re: [HPforGrownups] Ambition in the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: <4752642740.20020513134451@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38723 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Susanne wrote: > > > Hm, how ambitious is Harry, compared to Ron? > Mostly, he already has the talent, and only needs a little > help to bring it out. > > Hermione certainly works hard, but does Harry? > > Things happen to him, and he finds out he has many > talents/abilities that help him out in those circumstances, > but I don't really see him work very hard to make them > happen. No, he doesn't work hard on that... Only thing Harry ever did work hard for on his own desire - was to get that *letter* in PS. Or about not having to swallow violations on basic human rights. His ambitions are on having the things most children take for granted. - Sirius is the closest thing he can get... unless Lily and/or James turn out to be ghosting... > In GoF, he doesn't really work all that hard on his tasks > (though fear may have more to do with that) and would have > never made it without many peoples' help (IMO). > It's possible the other competitors had the same amount of > help. I don't have time to re-read those sections right now. > > Yes, he can fight the Imperius curse, but it was relatively > easy for him, because of..., I guess we'll find out more > about this in later books . Well, we *do* know how he hates to seem ridiculous to his peers - that's what made his hair grow back and shrunk Dudley's old sweaters that were way too big for him! > And he does work on learning the Patronus Charm, but why > don't any of the teacher try to help other students out with > special charms? How do we (Harry) know they don't? Hermione's Time Turner is one example of *special* education on other student, and Neville may be doing some extra Herbology. Most others don't *want* any extra lessons - but they'd get them if they just asked. I wouldn't be surprised if Hermione took animagi-lessons from McGonagall, her being so studious... registered, of course. > Sure, Harry needs it the most, but other students could > certainly benefit from it, too. > > Maybe Harry really *isn't* the only one who could do it. A *really* happy moment. The *happy* thought. Winning house-cup wasn't enough. Getting the letter from Hogwarts (first time *anyone* sent him a letter, first time he met a friendly person) *was* nearly enough, but not quite -- *Going to live with Sirius* was what finally did the trick (plus knowing he'd already *done* it). Happy thought that's happy enough to counter the *worst* moment of your life! A real, life-changing, happy turn. > I actually think many students might be envious of Harry > because he is given a lot more things/attention than any > other student at Hogwarts (for a reason, of course, but they > may not see it that way). Again; Harry wouldn't necessarily know if they had any extra classes; and I think teachers *would* give such if asked. Hermione got her extra credit work from *Snape* and if he's giving it to Gryffindor... > The sorting hat says that Harry has "a nice thirst to prove > himself", but I don't really see him go out of his way to do > this. Prove himself. Oh, he *does* have that. But he wants to prove himself lovable and worthy - to *himself* - so it doesn't need to take that kind of action. Getting Hogwarts letter, having a friend or two, helping Neville to get the remembrall back, saving lives of others... But he's wiser than thinking he gains it by good grades, by winning a house cup, following rules or being prefect; He desires a loving family - people who love him regardless of his performance. That's what held him tight by the Mirror - why Ron and Sirius are so very important to him. -- Finwitch From porphyria at mindspring.com Mon May 13 23:22:35 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 23:22:35 -0000 Subject: Ambition in the Wizarding World In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38724 Great post #38707, Cindy! You've done a great job collecting evidence to suggest that JKR does seem to have suspicions about ambition that are perhaps more pronounced than that of the average reader. I agree that Ron, in particular, is not very ambitious and neither is Harry, as Susanne has suggested. You said of Harry: << Harry seems to pull it together under pressure and coast the rest of the time. What is that, exactly? Should we call it Transient Ambition? Task-Oriented Ambition? Adolescent Ambition? ;-) >> Maybe Task-Oriented Ambition. I still wouldn't call him ambitious. When he *needs* to do something, he rises to the occasion. The dementors affected him more deeply than anyone else, so he made a point of getting Lupin to teach him how to deal with it. When *someone else* put his name in the Goblet, he did his best to perform admirably in the contest. (Although you have to admit he bought it on the 2nd task; Dobby was the one who saved him.) But Harry doesn't crave fame (he hates it), he doesn't crave wealth (he's got some, and he's a little ashamed of it), he doesn't crave power. He doesn't crave honor unless the situation wrenches it out of him. But I also think of ambition as having a master plan, a goal of some sort. Harry doesn't. Harry wants to be a normal kid. He doesn't want to wind up in the crazy situations he does. Half the time his immediate ambition is to stay alive. The rest of the time he's trying to save the life of someone he cares about. The only thing I think he really is ambitious about is Quiddtich. He has natural talent, but he also practices hard at 5am in the cold and rain. He fantasizes about being the next Krum. If he lives out the series, maybe he will be. :- ) Is this an example of good, harmless ambition chez JKR? Jo Serenadust tweaked your assertion regarding Real!Moody's ambitiousness, and you came up with more evidence: his thoroughness in defending against the Dark Arts and hunting down DEs. OK, but I did want to add -- and I think that this still supports your major point -- that one of the things we do know about Moody is that he was authorized to use the unforgivable curses against the DEs but avoided it as best as he could. This puts him in the same category as Dumbledore: someone who is quite capable of using the Dark Arts but chooses to limit his own power for, evidently, moral reasons. And I think the text indicates this is something *good* about Moody. So I'd say that Moody is presented as "good" to us when we see him curbing his power and "worrisome," like in the Pensieve, when we see him snarling at Karkaroff. Some of your other examples: << Or the twins, who mostly seem to be able to muster ambition when doing something against the rules (figuring out the Map, crossing the Age line). >> The twins are ambitious about their joke shop. And this is one of the reasons some readers worry about them. Their effort at raising money for the store does begin to border on blackmail (not that Bagman isn't being an absolute knave with them); and the idea of gambling for money is not seen as particularly honorable or wise in the first place (at least not by Molly). So there is the suggestion that they might go *too far* in their ambition. And then we have: << We have Snape, who supposedly covets the DADA position, but many on this list don't believe the rumor. Is Snape ambitious? I have my own views based on certain views about why Snape became a DE, but I'm not sure we've really reached much of a consensus there. >> I've often wondered whether or not PresentDay!Snape is as ambitious as you'd expect from a Slytherin. It's hard to tell if there is some particular *position* he's after. I'm one of those who thinks he'd rather be Potions Master than DADA Professor. I think he's proud of that and proud of being Head of House. But beyond that, I'm not sure. He seems committed to being a supporter of the cause that Dumbledore leads. He gets flattered when Draco suggests he'd make a good Headmaster, but I don't see any evidence that he really wants the job. He can't bring himself to actually *say* something disloyal towards Dumbledore in reply. When he does defy Dumbledore it's not so much because he's trying to undermine D's authority in favor of his own advancement. It's more for other Snapish reasons; he's angry, he thinks he knows better and he's actually trying to help, etc. But he very nearly always defers to Dumbledore, even when he disagrees. I guess your best bet would be to argue that he acts the most ambitious when it comes to the touchy subject (for him) of recognition. He seems to resent Harry for the fame he got without particularly deserving it. And he does *really really* like the idea of getting a Merlin Cross when it's offered to him. So thirsting after honor and, as the hat says, a desire to prove himself, this he does have. Whatever it is he does at the end of GoF supports this as well. He really wants someone (someone like Dumbledore) to believe in his value. But this is a good sort of ambition as well as bad; clearly D. does actually feel he needs someone like Snape for the cause, even if Snape occasionally causes problems for the same reasons. So perhaps for the present, he's got some slightly qualified ambition. On the other hand, there is Teenage!Snape and that could well be a different matter. I believe you have suggested in the past that perhaps Snape did join the DE s because he was ambitious. And this certainly makes sense in a lot of ways -- isn't this what Slyths are characteristically tempted to do? And Snape seems firmly convinced of his own talents, and would probably appreciate an atmosphere in which they could be appreciated and rewarded. Poor Snape does appreciate a pat on the head. So if Voldemort had any smarts at all he would have capitalized on this. But the whole point of Snape's character is redemption, isn't it? (OK, not the whole point, but a big, honking point.) So maybe, since JKR does seem ambivalent at best about the lure of ambition, maybe we can see some inkling of what Snape's redemption involved. Maybe curbing his ambition *somewhat,* contenting himself with striving for what he wants at 'some cost' instead of 'at any cost' was part of whatever maturation process he went through that led to his renouncing LV and all his evil ways. Maybe the reason Dumbledore trusts him so much is because he gave up on some extraordinarily powerful, high-ranking opportunity that LV offered him -- pace Cindy, who has in the past suggested the he left the DE s because LV didn't appreciate him at all. ;-) Cindy concludes: << But maybe this is just a common way to treat ambition in fiction dealing with a struggle between good and evil. I mean, Evil Overlords are almost ambitious by definition -- they want to rule the world. It's all or nothing for them -- they won't be happy just having a lot of influence or changing society at the margins. So perhaps writers (and JKR) have the Good Guys be less ambitious for contrast and conflict and to cast them as the underdog? >> Of course the good guys are always the ragtag band of misfits, and this is generic convention. But I think you've put your finger on the fact that ambition is a little more problematic than usual in the HP series. Characters always start to look more sinister when they show their ambitious streak. I'll be interested to see how it does play out in future books; i.e. will Percy/the twins/Ron/insert potentially ambitious character here/ be tempted to the Dark Side because their ambition is a weakness? Hopefully it won't be as all-or-nothing as that. ~~Porphyria, far too lazy to ever worry about the lure of ambition From dicentra at xmission.com Tue May 14 01:54:04 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 01:54:04 -0000 Subject: (Slight ref. TBAY): Harry Potter and, er, the Philosopher's Stone In-Reply-To: <8d.1842e98a.2a103db9@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38725 Dicentra sits in a chaise lounge on the deck of the Big Bang, sorting through clippings about Stoned!Harry. She's listening to an old tape she found while rummaging about--Mannheim Steamroller: Fresh Aire 7. She picks up the tape's case and begins to read the program notes. Track 5, called "The 7 Metals of Alchemy," catches her eye for obvious reasons. "One of [alchemy's] major goals was to seek perfection by union between spiritual and material phenomena. The changing of metals was simply an indicator," it reads. "Western Alchemists sought a substance called 'The Philosopher's Stone.' This was thought to be a distillation, into physical form, [of] the stuff that linked the physical and spiritual worlds together." Dicentra looks out into the bay for Stoned!Harry. He's sitting cross-legged about 50 yards out, plucking <"((>< out of the water and getting slapped in the face as they thrash about. Not exactly the epitome of such lofty goals as linking spiritual and physical worlds, she thinks. She picks out a clipping from the stack, number 38511, by Captain Caroline. It's the message that gave Stoned!Harry his first peek at the world: "I am one of the few (heck, maybe I'm the *only* one) who believes that Harry's Big Bangy secret is that he is a living embodiment of the philosopher's stone. ... Not that he's necessarily immortal, but that he holds within his being the potential for eternal life if properly activated." Dicentra smiles at the parenthetical phrase about being the *only* one, considering what has happened since then. Nope, Captain, you're certainly not the only one anymore. Then she picks out number 38654, which is David's reply to the Captain: "I much prefer this [potential for eternal life] to the simplistic 'Harry is immortal' theory. After all, the stone itself is not immortal -- it merely is the means to immmortality for wizards (and Muggles). That does mean that I don't take a lot of the canon evidence (Dumbledore unconcerned about Harry in danger, various beheadings and the like) the way other list members do. Dicentra underlines the part about the beheadings and scribbles in the margin: "In an interview, JKR said she was not concerned that readers might figure out the ending. She said that such readers would have learned how to read her books--how to read the symbols and things. The persistence of beheadings as opposed to other forms of execution (AK is the only other one) should not be ignored or under-analyzed any more than the reader should fail to read the names of Remus Lupin or Sirius Black as clues to their identity. Whether Harry is to be beheaded literally or figuratively is a different question, but in my mind, head(s) are definitely going to roll." Dicentra continues to read David's message: "I also think that the parallel between Christ and Harry is an entirely separate topic: there is no need to focus on immortality, whether actual or latent, to draw that parallel. (And it's very difficult to draw right: if you take one book chock full of symbols, such as Harry Potter, and line the symbols up against those found in another such book, like the Bible, you are bound to get some correspondences, IMO, a bit more structure than that is required.)" Dicentra scribbles in the other margin: "I myself am not sure to what degree Harry will turn out to be a Christ figure, if at all, but at the same time the Biblical 'correspondences' shouldn't be underplayed if they are numerous enough and distinct enough. Using the Bible as a Rosetta stone to understand HP is not a random comparison: JKR is a believing Christian living in a society where Biblical allegory and imagery forms an enormous part of the literary history. She is deliberately encoding the books with symbols of her choosing for the purpose of making a richer and more meaningful story. She would lose her audience if she used symbols with which we were not likely to be familiar. If we were using the Upanishads or the Popol Vuh to interpret the imagery, I think the 'correspondences' theory would hold more water, so to speak." David lobs off an evaluation of the Stoned!Harry flotation device: "So I think you TBAY-ers out there may have some sort of catamaran." Dicentra looks around at the destroyer's deck and scratches her head. She continues reading David's post: "Anyway, back to the topic. At one level, this is neat, because it gives Voldemort a reason to be interested in Harry which does not depend on some hackneyed 'first prophecy': he is after the immortality which can be unlocked from Harry (this is what Laura said). It is then an open question whether V was trying to AK Harry as a preliminary towards using his body, or whether he tried some other 'stone-power-extracting' spell, which (because of Lily's love) went wrong, leaving V damaged and Harry with Parseltongue and a V-sensitive scar. The second option has the very intriguing feature of giving a genuine role to Lily's love in saving Harry and damaging Voldemort, while avoiding the issue of all those other presumed mothers who died for their children." Dicentra writes in the bottom margin: "How about this--given that the yew tree, out of which Voldemort's wand is made, is very literally a Death Eater, and that his minions were called Death Eaters, it is possible that they had learned how to feed off the deaths of their AK victims, thereby stealing their victims' life-spans to add to their own. If at some point Voldemort learned of Stoned!Harry, he might have thought he could take Harry's 'stoneness' (possibly his immortality) if he AK'ed him too. This might also explain why he was in such a hurry to get to Harry and wasn't terribly interested in Lily. Unfortunately for V., you can't AK a Stone and feed off the death, and rather unpleasant results await you if you try." She comes to the end of David's post: "[T]here is no particular call for Harry to die at the end -- he just has to accept that a normal lifespan for everybody is the best way. ... So, the bottom line is, not that Harry is an embodiment of the physical stone, but that (possibly in conjunction with Voldemort) he is a better symbol of the same thing that the stone is a symbol for." She looks up. "Now what fun is that?" she asks. "No heads rolling around? No surprise ressurrection? No final duel over a rickety catwalk over a river of lava? David might like more subtle interpretations and stuff, but me, I'm staying aboard the Big Bang." She notes that Eloise says the same thing in message 38687, and then asks permission to reboard the Big Bang. "Girlfriend, I didn't even know you'd abandoned ship. Get on over here and tell me more about how Stoned!Harry gives up his life so others might live." --Dicentra, who doesn't think there's going to be any conjunctions with Voldemort either From jmmears at comcast.net Tue May 14 03:42:35 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 03:42:35 -0000 Subject: Ron & Hermione: Equal Best Friends or Not? In-Reply-To: <009b01c1face$b7403550$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38726 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > Many thanks to Catherine for pointing out the LOON-y detail regarding the wording in the 2nd Task. You're quite right; it's Dobby who adds in the adjective "most." happily at Catherine Interesting question regarding what might have happened if Krum hadn't been dating Hermione and/or if Dobby hadn't mentioned Ron specifically to Harry before the 2nd Task began. Very interesting. This particular nitpick strikes me as a technicality, more than a source of enlightenment. Actually, when measuring what each champion values most highly, the staff isn't limited to those on the premises at Hogwarts. If that were so, maybe Roger Davies (with whom she was "very busy" ^^ would have been the most obvious choice for Fleur. In fact, one could legitimately wonder why Sirius wasn't at the bottom of the lake for Harry. I do believe they have a way of discerning the true feelings of each champion (although, if Ron were a champion, I'd give even odds on Hermione being his choice ) Me in earlier post: > << the Firebolt incident in PoA, he probably misses her, but doesn't > seem to be in as much pain about her absence from his life during > that period as he is about the Firebolt being confiscated.>>>> Penny replies: > Harry suffers from inertia in this incident IMO. He does miss her, and he does recognize that she was only trying to help. He does make overtures to Hermione, and he asks Ron "can't you cut her a break?" at one point. But, he doesn't take *strong* action to intercede in the Ron/Hermione quarrel. This is in keeping with Harry's general personality though, and I don't think it should be a reflection on how he values Hermione. Inertia, huh. Well he does tend to be passive, but I keep remembering how Harry doesn't just miss Ron during their argument, he SUFFERS from his absence. He's alternately sad and furious, keeps imagining Ron's reactions to things like the "wonky feint" remark, considers going after him when he walks out on him, steals glances to see if he's looking back, and is generally miserable. Try as she does, Hermione's efforts and companionship don't have any effect on his misery, although he appreciates her efforts. He just doesn't have anything like this level of unhappiness when he and Ron are estranged from Hermione. I'm sorry, but I can't ignore the contrast. Me again: > << Harry values Ron more than Hermione in either chat or text because I > can't imagine that ever being necessary. I'm sure it would be > excruciating for any member of the trio to "reject" one in favor of > another and I hope I didn't imply that this would happen.>>>> Penny again: > Did I misunderstand your point then? I thought your point was that Ron is Harry's *best friend,* and that Hermione was something less than that. No, I did make the point that Harry *does* seem to value Ron's friendship (or at least his company) over Hermione's. Me again: > << Hermione without their prior friendship with each other.>>> And Penny again: > And, the point is ......? Yeah, Harry & Ron became friends first. I don't think that makes Hermione forevermore an interloper or 2nd class friend as a result. I also thought later, after posting my first message, that Harry does consistently refer to Hermione as his "other best friend." JKR obviously, IMHO, thinks that Hermione is on the same friendship level as Ron for Harry. The point is that Hermione is in the trio because it is a trio. The three of them are a great team, and she brings formidable assets to the trio. They wouldn't be nearly as effective in their adventures without her valuable input. However, in terms of pure friendship, Harry seems to value Ron just because he's...well, Ron. He doesn't have to be good at chess, or Quidditch or classwork for Harry to value him; he just has to be the loyal friend that he is. Penny sums up: > Well, sure, he's only 14. He wants to talk about Quidditch and goof off and play chess and do things Hermione in general has no interest in. All I'm saying is that it's perfectly natural for a 14- yr old boy to prefer to hang out with "the guys." But, when he thinks about who his best friends are, he always includes Ron and Hermione equally. As the kids mature, I'm confident Harry will appreciate Hermione's strengths as much as Ron's fun. I guess it all comes down to the question of how we evaluate our various friendships. Whom do we value most; the people who are "good for us" in terms of encouraging us to do our best work, or do we value the ones who bring us relaxation, fun, and an escape from the troubles in our lives? I've never doubted that Harry appreciates Hermione's strengths, but he seems to need and be drawn to Ron's companionship more (at least, so far). Jo S., beginning to seriously despair of ever having more canon to work with From heidi at barefootpuppets.com Tue May 14 02:16:33 2002 From: heidi at barefootpuppets.com (Heidi Rugg) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 22:16:33 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Madam Hooch & Flying Lessons References: Message-ID: <002201c1faed$5ea158b0$6401a8c0@barefoot> No: HPFGUIDX 38727 Paul W. wrote: >>What I want to know is not what Madam Hooch does for the 364 days she isn't holding her only flying lesson, but what happened to the Gryffs after their ill fated lesson. The last we saw in the book/film is Harry being taken off to see Wood after Neville breaks his wrist. Did the lesson continue, or did that year end up with no flying training at all?<< Welcome Paul! Madame Hooch, I presume does continue to give flying lessons throughout the year to first year students (I assume they are required to finish lessons before being allowed to have broomsticks on campus). She also referees all of the Quidditch matches (with the exception of the one that Snape did!) and probably does some coaching on the side. I guess she is also responsible for keeping the Bludgers, Quaffle and Snitch in good order. Hope this helps! Heidi R. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From catlady at wicca.net Tue May 14 04:15:31 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 04:15:31 -0000 Subject: Madam Hooch & Flying Lessons In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38728 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Paul Wright" wrote: > What I want to know is not what Madam Hooch does for the 364 days > she isn't holding her only flying lesson, but what happened to the > Gryffs after their ill fated lesson. The last we saw in the > book/film is Harry being taken off to see Wood after Neville breaks > his wrist. Did the lesson continue, or did that year end up with no > flying training at all? Welcome, newcomer. I have total certainty but no evidence that the interrupted lesson resumed when Hooch returned from Hospital Wing without Neville. I suppose she then demanded to know where Harry had gone, and Draco tried to tell some nasty tale, and the Gryffindors shouted him down with the truth... I also have certainty, but no evidence, that the first-years get more than one flying lessson from Hooch. I can speculate that, except for Harry, who was a 'natural', the kids had flying lessons for a year, or a semester, or until they were able to pass a flying test. We the readers never heard of Ron and Hermione being off at flying lessons because Harry was busy with Quidditch practise or something and didn't notice. I really think Hooch ought to be supervising the Quidditch teams's practises and advising them on matters of technique (like a coach!), but it's pretty clear in canon that the first-string teams take care of their own practises. Maybe she coaches practises for kids who didn't make the first-string? Incidentally, that scene in the movie irritated me very much. There she was, running after Neville being flown away with, looking aghast when he got stuck on top of a statue and then fell from it... "Madam Hooch! Are you a witch or aren't you?!" WHY didn't she just pull her wand and put some levitation charm (Nevillium Leviosa?) on Neville and steer him down as gently as an autumn leaf drifting on the breeze? From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue May 14 04:14:55 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 04:14:55 -0000 Subject: Ron- A Mommy's Boy?/ Mirror of Erised In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38729 Agh, there's so much stuff I want to post about on this on-going Ron debate, but I can't possible read all of this/type it all up tonight, seeing as how it's late and I have school tomorrow. So I'll just settle with throwing this out there and giving myself more to read. =P Barb: his mother tries to guilt him into being more ambitious than he is (she also berates the twins for not being prefects) so it's possible that he's reacting to his mother's pressure when he sees himself in the mirror covered in glory; in the end, perhaps pleasing his mother is really his heart's desire, and he knows what would please her, even though it's possibly not in his nature to deliver those particular things. Penny: Hmmm... well, I guess we interpret these things differently. If the Mirror shows a person what his/her deepest most desperate desire is, isn't it a bit odd to think that a person wouldn't have his/her own independent desires, apart from wanting to please someone else superficially? Barb: Not at all. Ron frequently speaks of how his mother would react to something. Molly's opinion is clearly very important to him. Many people go through their entire lives trying to please their parents and do not ever give much thought to what they really want to do. Perhaps this is really why Ron seems somewhat aimless at this point in his life; he's not really focussing on what HE wants as much as his mother. Naama: But surely if his deepest desire was to please his mother, this is what he would have seen in the Mirror? Molly hugging him, telling him he's her favorite, etc. What he sees is himself crowned with glory. I think we should accept this as is: Ron has a deep desire for more attention, recognition - the obverse side of which is his tendency to jealousy. It shouldn't be downplayed. Okay, I don't think Ron is trying to please his mother- I think he's trying to better himself and his family. He's always making comments about being poor and hating that fact. Well he's only 11 when he stands in front of the mirror, and at that time Hogwarts is a very big thing in his life. He's just come to this big new school, and although Ron isn't very driven on most things, he does seem to want to please those that he sees as worth pleasing. And so, with 5 older brother's to follow, I see it as natural for him to wanting to do well at Hogwarts. Ron reminds me alot of my little sister. She's the last of four, she does have some shoes to fill, and she acts about it the same way as Ron: needs to be badgered to do her homework (and other things), complains about most things, bickers alot, and can throw a fit when she has a mind to. But she's exceedingly family- oriented and loyal when it comes down to it, though she can make a mountain out of a mole hill, as the saying goes. Very much like Ron (infact, same age as Ron when he stood infront of the mirror). Agh, I see that I've rambled away from my point. But getting back to it, Hogwarts- big thing to this 11 year old trying to come into his own, and in doing well at Hogwarts(as Ron sees himself in the Mirror, at graduating age and with so many accomplishments), perhaps Ron also sees that that would lead to a road to better things: a good job, a good income, finally some money and(since everyone finds Ron somewhat glory-hungry)perhaps some glory for his family? He's 11, and Ron doesn't seem to be the planning ahead type- so perhaps when he looked into the mirror, on that one night during his first year at Hogwarts, what he really wanted was to excel there and be patted on the back by everyone. But that was just on that one night. I do think Ron is ambitious, but he completely lacks the necessary drive. I really wonder what the Sorting Hat said to him, he seems to have some of the makings of a Slytherin, also- except for his loyalty and total lack of ruthless determination. I firmly believe that Ron has yet to find his own calling. The Twins seem to resemble Ron in the aspects of rules and authority, and they have finally found something they can excel and exceed others in: they're toy making business. I think Ron is also looking for something that he will find joy/excel greatly in, and I hope he finds it like the Twins did. But going back to the Mirror- I don't think it shows your deepest, darkest,most desperate heart's desire. I think it shows the one thing you are most wanting *at that moment*. When Harry first sees the Mirror, he sees himself surrounded by family- understandable, considering how he's been raised by the uncaring Dursley's and has just recently discovered his parent's past and their deep love for him. Ron sees himself as exceling greatly at Hogwarts- also understandable, as he has just entered Hogwarts standing under his brother's shadows. But when Harry faces the Mirror again, he sees himself finding the Stone in his pocket- because that was what he most wanted(*at that moment*)- to get the Stone and protect it from evil. The Mirror showed Quirrel as just wanting the Stone, but I doubt that was his deepest darkest desire- it was just what he was wanting the most at that moment. If it had showed his deepest desire, it might have showed him breaking free of Voldermort(if there was any good left in him) or himself exceling greatly for Voldemort and recieving his praise(since he was such a loyal servant as to allow Voldie to posses the back of his head). So I really don't see why you should read so much into what the Mirror showed that one night to Ron and Harry. And I'm going to end this here because I need sleep. =P ~Aldrea From elfundeb at aol.com Tue May 14 04:42:41 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 00:42:41 EDT Subject: Ambition in the Wizarding World (Ron, Percy and Bill) Message-ID: <16a.d9b0f02.2a11efc1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38730 Cindy, coming in late on Ron's ambition: > Hmmm. I think it's a tough sale to say that Ron is ambitious. Ron, > rather than striving toward something, just wants things. Better > yet, he wants them handed to him, and the only effort he's willing > to put forth at times is to hold out his hand. So count me among > those who think Ron has an eager or strong *desire* for things like > fame or fortune, but lacks a desire to put in the effort to > *achieve* these things. > > [snips Cindy's search for C.R.A.B. badge, which she inadvertently dropped > off the deck of the Big Bang Destroyer, while arguing for more molten lava > on Stoned! Harry; holds Cindy's rescued C.R.A.B. badge in hand and > contemplates whether to keep it or let Cindy have it back] > And I'm not saying he doesn't have positive qualities. Deciding not > to be ambitious is fine, really. I'm just having trouble with the > idea that he is ambitious because he dreams of distinguishing > himself but takes few steps to make it happen. > I'll join in, even later than Cindy, because I have a (probably unsurprisingly) different view of Ron's ambition. I believe that Ron is not lacking in ambition, talent or willingness to work hard, but that he suppresses it. Accordingly, in the ordinary course of events, Ron masks his abilities and desires in a show of lackadaisical unconcern. Ron's talents manifest themselves only in rare, stressful moments, such as: 1. Mastering Wingardium Leviosa when Harry and Hermione were being threatened by a twelve-foot troll. 2. Executing the chess sacrifice. 3. Realizing that Ginny knew the secret of the Chamber of Secrets, and suggesting the first step in the plan of action that led to her rescue. 4. Researching for Buckbeak's appeal with a determination never applied to his homework. Actually, I really like the way Cindy expressed it: > That said, the Good Guys always seem to find some major ambition > from somewhere when the situation demands it -- like while battling > it out on a rickety catwalk over a river of molten lava. ;-) > And then there are all of those other situations, also well documented, where he is willing to sacrifice himself for his friends. There's one thing all of the actions have in common: He doesn't do any of them for himself. Cindy, Barb Purdom and others believe this indicates a lack of ambition. Barb also said: Remember, in the first book, he [Ron] was the one with the strength to walk away from the Mirror of Erised (which SHOWED him as Head Boy and Quidditch captain), while Harry wanted to keep going back and stare at his family. But I'm not convinced it was strength that kept Ron from going back to the mirror. I think he may have been scared by the vision of his suppressed ambitions staring him in the face and its implications. Why? I think there are a number of reasons, all related in some way to the Weasley family dynamic. (It's interesting that until I began to focus on this question I had always recalled Harry's reason for liking the Burrow as because everyone seemed to like each other. But I looked it up, and that's not what he thought; it was because everyone seemed to like *him*.) One is his fear of failure, which he expresses on the train to Hogwarts in PS/SS - if he's not Head Boy or Quidditch captain, he'll be a failure - that is, unless he doesn't try. But he hasn't fully suppressed the desire for success and the recognition that goes with it. It's ever present in his choice of friends, a probable Head Girl and Quidditch Captain. It rears its ugly head when he tries to accept recognition for essentially passive activities, such as being attacked by Sirius in his dormitory or being rescued from the lake. Tabouli kindly pointed out to me once before when I mentioned Ron's apparent lack of ambition: > > Oo, also interesting. Too scared and self-conscious to try for fear of being upstaged yet again? (therefore if he fails, he can always tell himself he didn't really try anyway). Hmm. Could be, could be. Note that initially at least *Harry* hasn't done anything conscious to secure his fame either, he just passively lay in his cot and deflected Voldemort's AK. *And* was made Seeker by virtue of breaking a school rule in defence of Neville. How depressing for a boy who's already lived his life in his brothers' shadow. Not to mention Ginny, who just sat there passively being the only girl and thereby getting special attention. You could argue that Ron does have examples around him that passively awaiting something to happen can provide results... > And that's why he's so frustrated when Harry becomes a Triwizard champion. Harry doesn't do anything to earn it, and he has to come to terms with that. A second reason may be the fact that Ron is profoundly affected by the family's poverty, and it may be one more reason to reject Molly's ambitions for her sons. After all, there's a clear disconnect between Molly's pushing her children to academic success in order to start a career in the Ministry and Arthur's position. Arthur's been working at the Ministry for many years and can barely support his family. There are clues that may suggest much more to the Weasley family background than we - or the younger Weasley children - are aware of, such as the family's reactions to the events at the Quidditch World Cup, but there's no suggestion in canon that the younger Weasley children have any understanding of these circumstances. Percy, OTOH, has bought Molly's agenda wholesale, suggesting another reason for Ron's rejection of ambition. He does not want to be Percy, endlessly tormented by the charismatic Twins and becoming ever more pompous in defense. So, Ron outwardly allies himself with the twins to avoid being tormented himself. He consciously becomes an anti-Percy and more Twin-like. (I actually think Ron's fear of spiders may have as much to do with his fear of becoming a target as the spiders themselves; after all, the triggering event was that Fred turned his teddy bear into a spider because he broke one of Fred's toys.) In spite of Ron's attempt to be the anti-Percy, in fact I think they are very much alike, two bookends driven apart by the noisy, attention-getting twins. There are little details suggesting how they're alike, starting with their tall and lanky builds (shared with Bill, but not with their shorter, stockier, Quidditch-playing brothers). Both have a tendency to embarrass easily. Both demonstrate very strong loyalties. Both are somewhat insecure about their position in the family and have a consequent need for recognition. But because of that wedge that's been driven between them, they have opposite reactions to Molly's ambitions, and are in opposition to each other. If Percy and Ron, despite their similarities, represent the opposites of accepting and rejecting Molly's ambitions for them, how can they be reconciled? Is there a middle ground? How about the third member of the trio of tall and lanky Weasley sons? Bill Weasley represents the amalgam of Percy's acceptance and Ron's apparent rejection of Molly's goals. He achieved the academic success that Molly wanted for him, but charted his own career course outside the Ministry. I may be reading a lot into a few sentences of text, but I think Bill may be an example of the "good" kind of ambition and, therefore, an example for Percy and Ron. We haven't seen much of Bill yet. But the glimpse of him we got in GoF is very intriguing. He's a bit of a nonconformist. He also appears to have a good relationship with both Percy and Ron. For example, on more than one occasion, he affectionately calls Percy "Perce." He's sensitive to Percy's annoyance when he and Charlie are making such a racket with the tables in the garden, even good-naturedly asking him how the cauldron bottoms are coming. Later on, at Hogwarts for the third task, he remarks sympathetically about how much trouble Percy is having at the Ministry. But when Percy's mania for correctness gets out of hand, as when he begins to criticize Arthur for his handling of Rita Skeeter after the WWC, Bill is quick to tell Percy to "shut it," again calling him "Perce." There seems to be some sort of mentoring relationship between them. There's also some evidence that he might (or could) function in a similar role for Ron as well. He chastizes Ron at the QWC, telling him to "use his brains." There's also a scene in GoF at the Burrow the night before everyone leaves for Hogwarts, in which every character is described to be doing something very characteristic of who they are. Harry is polishing his Firebolt, Hermione is immersed in the next year's books, Charlie is mending dragon paraphernalia, Percy is pontificating about the Ministry's problems, etc. Bill and Ron are playing chess together, something that always struck me as significant about their relationship. All could be viewed as signs that Bill plays a mentoring role for Percy and Ron - the kind of mentoring that I think Ron would have benefited receiving from Percy. Moreover, whatever skeletons might be lurking in the Weasley family past (and I'm a believer that there's something there, Bill is old enough to remember them. Thus, he's outside whatever, if anything, is plaguing the family's memories. Finally, but perhaps most importantly, Bill demonstrates his loyalties when he immediately steps forward at the end of GoF when Dumbledore needs to round up support at the Ministry. I think Bill could play an important role in future books in nudging one or the other of Percy or Ron at some critical moment, and I'd like to see more development of him in the future. Debbie, who's decided to keep the C.R.A.B. badge if Cindy doesn't want it, and add a P.I.N.E. badge for good measure [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Tue May 14 09:46:22 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 09:46:22 -0000 Subject: Neville: Memory, History, Legacy, Power (LONG!) (Was:: Still Life) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38731 Hi, guys. I was away all last week so, as usual, this is a very late follow-up. I'm going to get with the program one of these days, you know. Honest I am. Someday it will happen. I'll start responding promptly, and posting quickly, and then finally I'll be on the same page as everybody else. Really I will. ----- On Uncovering the Buried Past David wrote: > My understanding is that the burial ('denial' in all its > connotations) and uncovering of the past is central to the whole > series. . . .However, I had seen this almost entirely in a positive > light. It is *good* that the past be uncovered and the truth be > known. Even if it is initially unpleasant (even misleading), it is > ultimately good. > Not that he must be mortal to die - rather, the conditions > that allow him to flourish are still present, and the whole plant > must be dug up, not just this year's growth snipped off. True. But you have to be careful with that, you know. All too often when you go digging, your disturbance of the ground only serves to foster the growth of more weeds. Even when the ground looks empty, it's not. It's filled with dormant roots, and every time your shovel slices through one of them, each piece grows into its very own plant. They're just like the Hydra's heads that way, roots are. If you don't treat them very carefully indeed, then you're just letting yourself in for a world of misery. Um. Can you tell that my garden is a mess? But no. Playing around with your metaphor like that really isn't very fair, is it? I'm sorry. I did have a point I was trying to make, though, which was that sometimes the reawakening of the past can create *new* evils, evils which really never had to come about in the first place. There are some things -- like the dead, for example -- which it is quite proper to bury and quite improper to disturb again once they have been laid to rest. There are other things -- land mines, for instance -- which ought to be located and dealt with, rather than allowed to remain hidden away underground. The difficulty, of course, comes in determining which buried things are best served by which policy. We let sleeping dogs lie because a sleeping dog does no harm. We don't ignore radon leaks because radon leaks, while their effects may be insidiously subtle, are nonetheless extremely toxic. But it's not always easy to tell whether something is more like a sleeping dog or more like a radon leak, and that's just where the problem lies. David wrote: > In relation to Neville, I would see it as a positive development > for his past to be exposed. Yes, so would I. I fear that I may have placed such strong emphasis on the perils of remembrance in my last post that I might have given the impression of ignoring or rejecting the notion that forgetfulness, too, has its perils. Such was not my intent. I just felt that Dicentra had done such a fine job of explaining the perils of forgetfulness that she had left me free to focus my attentions elsewhere. But I certainly agree with David that denial and willful ignorance are always problematic. In Neville's case, I think that it is clearly harmful. As Dicentra pointed out, the "filth under Neville's carpet" does seem to be interfering with his ability to function. It's not a sleeping dog at all. It's a radon leak. Neville's current form of forgetfulness is neither beneficial nor healthy for him. But neither, I hasten to point out, is the type of remembrance that we see afflicting Harry, Sirius and Snape over the course of the series at all good for *them.* That both Harry and Sirius prove capable of relinquishing their unhealthy focus on the past is absolutely fundamental to their development; that Snape all too often finds himself incapable of managing this feat is portrayed as his characteristic personal failing. While I do worry quite a bit about JKR's approach to renunciation, I think that she is quite even-handed when it comes to her portrayal of the respective perils of forgetfulness and of remembrance. David wrote: > I don't think it necessarily beyond JKR's authorial vision to put > forward a view of humanity that is outside the scope of the four > houses. . . . What I think *is* outside her vision is the idea that > some sleeping dogs really are better let lying. Interesting! Because of course, my worries lie in precisely the opposite direction. I don't get the impression that JKR views her wizarding culture -- or her four Houses of Hogwarts -- in nearly as negative a light as I do. But I do think that she has laid out quite a number of examples of the perils of memory. Amy touched on these in her response. She wrote: > I see one strong piece of evidence, however, that JKR does not > believe that remembering is always preferable to forgetting, that > she recognizes that not all truths are better off dredged up--at > least if they won't go quietly back underground after we've taken a > good honest look at them. This evidence is the Dementors. One of > the worst torments Rowling's imagination has devised is the > inability to escape memory, and she makes it clear that these > floods of memory, far from being empowering, drain one of one's > powers and make one completely ineffectual. To which David replied: > and more disquieting still, he is drawn to the Dementors - or at > least his resistance is weakened - because they give him a chance > to hear his parents again. And the same can be said for the Mirror of Erised, can't it? It has exactly the same effect on Harry. It ennervates and distracts him, and leaves him incapable of mustering any degree of interest in his other affairs, and yet he finds it perilously addictive. The Mirror of Erised is portrayed very differently than the Dementors on the gut emotional level, of course -- the Mirror is pleasurable and entrancing, while the Dementors are horrifying and fearsome -- but in essence, they are the same. Both Mirror and Dementors strike me as representations of the harmful (and yet seductive) aspects of memory retention. In both cases, Harry returns to them again and again, even though he knows that they are not good for him. At the same time, though, I do think that both the Mirror and the Dementors serve a useful *initial* function for Harry. It was a Good Thing, IMO, that Harry received the opportunity to see the images of his lost family in the Mirror of Erised -- indeed, there's strong implication that this was one of the very reasons that Dumbledore left it lying around for him to find in the first place. It was also a Good Thing, although very painful, for Harry to hear the sounds of his parents' voices and to learn a bit more about their deaths. What wasn't good for him was *dwelling* on those things. Amy wrote: > It's true that Harry is driven, and almost driven to a disastrous > action, by his Dementor-induced memory of his mother: one of the > things that most enrages him about Black is that he, the murderer, > doesn't have to relive this memory while Harry does. . . .That > moment is the closest Harry comes to killing Sirius, driven by an > inescapable memory; the past, forcibly recalled, can turn one into > an avenging angel. It can, I agree. It can also turn one into a monster. "If it can, the Dementors will feed on you long enough to reduce you to something like itself -- soulless and evil." It always strikes me that the human character who comes the closest to resembling a purely malevolent (i.e., "soulless and evil") force in canon -- exempting Voldemort, of course, who is no longer fully human -- is Crouch Jr., who was rescued from Azkaban only once he was tottering on the very brink of death. I really don't think that's at all coincidental. Amy: > If we wish to be free and act morally, we can neither reject > history in the absolute sense of refusing to acknowledge it > (keeping it buried), nor steep ourselves in it completely. We look > into the Mirror of Erised, sigh with longing that it is not real, > and move on. "Because I know that time is always time And place is always and only place And what is actual is actual only for one time And only for one place..." Yes. > I hope that's the model that JKR will finally endorse: one that > mixes memory and renunciation. Me too. ----- On the Renunciation of Legacies David, who is blessed (as I am not) with the gift of brevity, summarized my position on this as follows: > That Neville is a kind of anti-Harry, in the sense that he > renounces an overt legacy that is very similar to the covert legacy > that Harry discovers and embraces. She expresses the fear that JKR > will show such renunciation to be misconceived, and that Neville > will be given authorial approval for taking up his auror's mantle; > Elkins would rather that a positive place be given for renouncing > the kick-ass approach to dealing with evil. Yup. That about sums it up. No Dementor's been anywhere near David's wit, that's for sure. One thing that I would like to point out here is the distinction that David drew between Neville's _overt_ legacy and Harry's _covert_ one. There is a paradox implicit in the parallel between Neville and Harry: Neville is the one who suffers from forgetfulness, while Harry suffers from memory, yet Neville is the one who is aware of his own legacy, while Harry remains largely ignorant of his own. Neville knows, but cannot remember. Harry remembers, but does not know. This distinction becomes highly relevant, to my mind, when we start talking about Neville-as-renunciate. Abigail, for example, felt that I was confusing rejecting the past with hiding from it. She wrote: > Whether or not his memory has been modified, Neville's memory > issues, his inability to face up with his legacy as you call it, > is not a choice, it is the result of fear. . . .He hasn't made any > choice, either to embrace the role his family has set out for him > or to reject it, because in order to do so he would first have to > be aware that such a choice exists. Oh, but I think that Neville is most certainly aware that such a choice exists. How could he not be? His family speaks to him about his obligations to uphold the family honor all the time. When he gets into trouble at school, his howler berates him for "bringing shame on the family name." As a child, he had to endure mad Uncle Algie's constant attempts to coax some magic out of him by doing things like dropping him into deep water and out of windows. His professors view his behavior with disdain or outright hostility. His fellow Gryffindors nag him to "stand up for himself." He visits his parents in the hospital over his holidays. I mean, how could he *not* know? The kid does have a poor memory, true, but it's really not all *that* bad. He does remember his upbringing. He does know what happened to his parents. He is aware - - all too well-aware, I'd say -- of the expectations and desires that his family, and his culture as a whole, have placed upon him. He is, in fact, far more knowledgable about precisely what it is that he is rejecting, I'd say, than Harry is about precisely what it is that he is so eager to accept. In fact... Abigail: > In this context Neville represents neither memory nor > forgetfullness (that is, the choice to forget something, as you say > the wizarding community has collectively chosen to do) but a > complete unawareness that the past even exists. In much the same > way that children are unable to conceive of a world that existed > before their birth. Hmm. Well, really, isn't this a far more accurate description of Harry's position (at the start of the series) than it is of Neville's? It is *Harry,* after all, who is wholly ignorant of his own family legacy when the story begins. In fact, he starts out in a state of ignorance about the very *existence* of the wizarding world to which he belongs. And as David pointed out, with each successive volume, he learns a little bit more -- about his past, about his family, and about the world which he has only recently entered. Neville, on the other hand, has been utterly immersed in that world for all of his life. What he lacks is not the *knowledge* of history -- his reaction to Crouch's demonstration of the Cruciatus makes it abundantly clear, to my mind, that he's got plenty of that -- but the direct *memory* of it, which is not at all the same thing. What Neville's poor memory represents, in my reading, is not ignorance at all, but rather repudiation and rejection. Abigail: > If we accept that Neville hasn't yet made a concious choice either > way, and that in order to make that choice he has to first get over > his memory block, whatever is causing it, then for him to be the > prince renunciate he *must* stop forgetting. He has to look back at > whatever it is he doen't want to see and actively say "No, I don't > want to do that." Mmm. I think that we may be talking at cross-purposes here. I certainly agree that renunciation is only a meaningful choice if one knows what it is that one is renouncing. Otherwise it isn't really renunciation at all, but merely ignorance. I think, though, that once we start talking about the *thematic* significance of things like Neville and Harry's respective memories, as opposed to their plot significance, then it becomes useful for the purposes of discussion to ascribe a certain degree of agency to the characters involved, even if they do not in fact possess it on the more literal level of the plot. This is because on the thematic level, distinctions between conscious and unconscious, passive and active, internal and external, are often blurred and therefore become far less meaningful. In other words, just as we can view what exposure to the dementors does to their victims as representative of the dangers of dwelling on the past as a matter of conscious choice, rather than of magical coercion, so I think that it is reasonable to view Neville's faulty memory and many of his personality defects as representative of the dangers of ignoring the past as a matter of conscious choice, rather than as a negative side-effect of some form of artificial memory suppression. Viewed in this context, Neville's poor memory is evidence of a decision that he has already made to reject his legacy. He has not chosen to reject it in a very healthy manner, it is true (although he's still one-up on Crouch Jr, who picks just about the worst path of renunciation that one can possibly imagine). His decision is causing him a lot of problems. But I do nonetheless see his behavior as indicative of an active will towards renunciation. As for what would be a *healthy* form of renunciation, though... Abigail: > But see, I don't see Neville coming into his own and Neville > rejecting the expectations of his family to be mutually exclusive. No, neither do I. That was the reason that I wrote: > ...the coming of age story that accompanies Neville's type, is one > of renunciation, rather than of acceptance, of "coming into ones > own" by finding the strength to *reject* the legacy and to forge > instead a new destiny of ones own choosing. Obviously, I think that this is a perfectly legitimate form of coming- of-age story, and one that Abigail describes quite nicely here: > And wasn't it you, Elkins, who said that Neville's problems with > magic have nothing to do with power and everything to do with > control? Coming into his own might mean, in that context, taking > control not only of the direction his life is taking but of his own > abilities, and not necessarily choosing to use them to prod DE > buttock. Indeed, if Neville were the protagonist of the tale, then this would be how the story would *have* to play out. And even as things stand, with Neville serving as a literary double to Harry, it could still play out that way. It *could.* Certainly I would very much like that. Abigail: > As someone who was once weak, frightened and bullied herself, what > I expect and hope for Neville is to gain the kind of maturity that > allows him to look at the people deriding him and say "Why would I > give a damn what those idiots think of me?" and go his own way no > matter what they say. I want Neville to truly believe that he's > worth ten Draco Malfoys, because I think he is. Yes, I agree. This is what I, too, want most for Neville. In fact, quite some time ago now, I wrote a post outlining all of the things that I would love to see Neville do in canon. All of them fell fairly firmly under the aegis of "going ones own way no matter what they say." Unfortunately, though, I don't have much faith that JKR will oblige us here. For one thing, as I've said before, I haven't seen very much evidence that the positive aspects of renunciation are something that she has given much thought to. I could be wrong about that, of course. I certainly hope that I am. But so far, JKR has chosen to portray characters who reject their legacies in unremittingly negative ways. (The only possible exception to this rule might be Snape, but we know so little about either his past or his upbringing that it is really impossible to say for sure whether he is an exception to the rule or not.) I also find it unlikely because I feel fairly well convinced that the thematic pattern that JKR has already established when it comes to the exhumation of long-buried things -- that such reawakenings yield dramatic reversals and violent results -- will likely hold true in future volumes as well. Pippin wrote, as the summation to her excellent analysis of Harry and Neville's mirror relationship: > I do see renunciation of the warrior role ahead, but for Harry, not > Neville. I think Harry will eventually choose to give up his magic, > while mirror image Neville will choose to embrace his. I find this suggestion highly compelling. And I don't think that it bodes very well at all for a scenario in which JKR chooses to take Neville down a path of beneficent renunciation. Dogberry wrote: > I see no reason to have him change personality and become a symbol > of vengence. You need someone like Neville, to keep a grip on the > value of life. I rather like the idea of "to err is human, to > forgive is divine" for Neville. So do I. But Pippin's hypothesis would suggest that it may well be reserved for Harry in the end, with Neville playing his usual role as Designated Mirror. ------ On Competition, Power, and the Warrior Ethos I wrote that I believe that Neville fears power, and "not only power in the general sense, but even more specifically, power as it seems to find its primary expression in the traditional culture of the wizarding world." I then went on to describe this conception of power as one rooted in an ethos of combat, competition, and strife. Cindy wondered why Neville would fear such a thing: > I would guess that most people don't have a problem possessing > power (although many people have difficulty deciding what, if > anything, to do with it). By definition, not possessing power > renders one powerless, and few people aspire to be powerless, I'd > say. Well, there was a reason that I specified the *type* of power that I believe that Neville fears. Indeed, few people aspire to be powerless. But there are many different conceptions of power. In a highly competitive culture, power is defined not as power *to,* but as power *over.* In other words, ones own personal power is defined not in terms of what it enables one to accomplish, but purely in terms of its ability to supercede or to override the power of others. It's a zero-sum game. And I can certainly think of many reasons why if one were culturally encouraged to perceive of power in those particular terms, one would both fear it and want desperately to renounce it. Here we begin to tread perilously close to the borders of the Garden of Good and Evil. The warrior culture's definition of power -- power over others -- is kissing kin to Dicentra's definition of Evil as the ethos of predation. It belongs to a moral system in which one can never gain through another's gain, but only through another's loss. And like Dicentra, I do tend to view that as fairly close to my own personal definition of evil. If Neville feels the same way, and if that is how the culture in which he was raised has defined "power," then I find it utterly unsurprising that he might shy away from it as a matter of both moral principle (healthy) and phobic aversion (not at all healthy). Cindy then asked: > So why is Neville different? Ah, well. These things do happen, don't they? It's just like Hagrid said about Dobby. Every culture, like every species, is bound to have its weirdos. ;-) > Maybe the fact that the wizarding world is so competitive is the > reason I like it so much? :-) Heh. Well, it's certainly one of the reasons that I like the books so much. It's my own personal revision of P.A.C.M.A.N., you see. "Politically Appalling Cultures Make Appealing Novels." I cited the House Cup as an example of the atmosphere of conflict and certamen that Hogwarts nurtures in its students. Abigail wrote: > I expect that, as the kids start growing up, as the magnitude of > what's happening (or will be happening) around them becomes clear, > the inter house competitions will seem less and less important - > downright silly, even. Perhaps. Or possibly they will begin to seem even *more* important. In the years of Voldemort's first rise, was the Gryffindor/Slytherin rivalry less heated than it was in the first three books, do you think? Or was it more heated? Certainly in the current day, it seems far more heated to me in the fourth book than it did in previous volumes. We've now reached the point where students are hexing each another on the train! And we still have three books to go. Cindy wrote: > They want the House Cup only because others want it, and the only > value it has is the fleeting warm fuzzy feeling of . . . having > kept the Cup away from a rival. > Kind of sad, really. I tend to view it as worse than sad. I see it as directly linked to the endless, cyclical, and seemingly inevitable rebirths and returns of dark forces within the fictive world. Salazar's monster sleeps beneath Hogwarts school. Voldemort rises again. And before Voldemort, there was Grindewald. And before Grindewald... Well. To get back to David's original metaphor, I tend to view the wizarding world's problems as very deeply rooted indeed. Harry's "defeat" of Voldemort didn't last because it only sliced the plant off at the surface of the soil, rather than pulling it up by the root. It's growing again now from its root. And one of the manifestations of that root, as I see it, is Hogwarts' House system and its inter-House competition. If there is to be any sense of true resolution by the end of the series, then I feel that we must see that dynamic transcended in some fashion. This was what I was trying to get at when I wrote of "None of the Above" Neville as capable of affecting a more profound type of change than "All of the Above" Harry. Harry's current talents and virtues certainly do make him the ideal agent for yet another slicing off at ground level, but is that really what we want? I think that what the wizarding world needs is a more radical approach -- and I use the word "radical" here in its etymological sense. "Radix" means "root" in Latin. A radical approach is one that goes directly to the root of a problem. In order for that to happen in a way that I will personally find convincing, Harry will *have* to adopt at least some form of the principle of renunciation, as well as that of acceptance, before the series' end. -- Elkins From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue May 14 12:38:10 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 12:38:10 -0000 Subject: Ron & Hermione: Equal Best Friends or Not? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38732 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" wrote: Actually, when measuring what each > champion values most highly, the staff isn't limited to those on the > premises at Hogwarts. If that were so, maybe Roger Davies (with > whom she was "very busy" ^^ would have been the most obvious choice > for Fleur. In fact, one could legitimately wonder why Sirius wasn't > at the bottom of the lake for Harry. Now, *that* raises an interesting question. If the tournament staff had the whole wide world to choose from, what are we to make of Hermione being Viktor Krum's choice? Does he value her more than his parents, his friends at Durmstrang, his Quidditch teammates, his childhood friends, any siblings or cousins or favorite aunts and uncles he might have? If that's the case, I feel pretty sorry for the boy. He's obviously found the one true love of his life, and she's, well, not interested. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue May 14 13:24:11 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:24:11 -0000 Subject: FILK: Flesh, Blood and Bone Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38733 Flesh, Blood and Bone To the tune of "Bad to the Bone" by George Thoroughgood Dedicated to Caius Marcius Scene: Voldemort, restored by Wormtail's spell, gloats to Harry VOLDEMORT: Now that I've been reborn, Death Eaters gather 'round. They thought I was gone, But I'm on the rebound. Gonna claim my place On the Wizard World's throne, Now that I've been restored With flesh, blood and bone. Flesh, blood and bone Flesh, blood and bone F-f-f-flesh, Flesh, blood and bone I was on top of the world Before I met you, And I will rule again Before I am through. You beat me as a baby, But now that you're grown, You have helped me come back With flesh, blood and bone. Flesh, blood and bone Flesh, blood and bone F-f-f-flesh, Flesh, blood and bone I'll make Malfoy bow, And I'll bring McNair to heel, I'll make Avery scream, And I'll make Wormtail squeal. Your life is mine, Harry Potter, Mine and mine alone, Now that I've been restored With flesh, blood and bone. Flesh, blood and bone Flesh, blood and bone F-f-f-flesh, Flesh, blood and bone Now, give the boy his wand, And then just stand aside. When he's dead by my hand, Then I'll be satisfied. I want a world without Potters, A world I can make my own, Now that I've been restored to my body With Flesh, blood and bone. Flesh, blood and bone Flesh, blood and bone F-f-f-flesh, Flesh, blood and bone Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue May 14 13:35:26 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:35:26 -0000 Subject: Ron & Hermione: Equal Best Friends or Not? & Krum SHIP In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38734 Marina observed: > Now, *that* raises an interesting question. If the tournament >staff > had the whole wide world to choose from, what are we to make of > Hermione being Viktor Krum's choice? Does he value her more than >his > parents, his friends at Durmstrang, his Quidditch teammates, his > childhood friends, any siblings or cousins or favorite aunts and > uncles he might have? If that's the case, I feel pretty sorry for the > boy. He's obviously found the one true love of his life, and she's, > well, not interested. Hmmm. Apparently Karkaroff was *not* the thing Victor would miss most. So I guess Victor isn't planning on returning Karkaroff's affections any time soon. ;-) You guys are making me think the whole Second Task was rather FLINTy, actually. I mean, Dumbledore manages to make off with Gabrielle and put her at the bottom of a lake? Gabrielle's parents are OK with this? Do they just not recognize that she's missing? Does Dumbledore kidnap the child all the way to Britain for this Task? Fleur would miss her kid sister more than, say, her mother? (Well, maybe, although I, uh, never felt that way about my own siblings until I was *much* older than 17). **************** Now, on to this question of who is Harry's best friend. Or whether Ron and Hermione are equal best friends. I'm coming in late to this thread, so bear with me if I repeat something that's already been said (actually it would be a miracle if I say anything new here). Yes, the evidence is conflicting, but we're talking about a 14-year old boy here. I mean, it would be extraordinary for a boy of that age to have a best friend who is a girl. That doesn't have anything to do with Hermione not being a valued friend. But Ron and Harry spend a great deal more time together than Harry and Hermione do, owing to the fact that Ron and Harry share a dorm. Ron and Harry have the exact same course schedule and frequently do their homework together. Harry spends time with Ron and his family on two occassions, and Ron rescues Harry from the Dursleys in CoS. Ron has simply had more opportunity to develop his friendship with Harry than Hermione has. We also have the uncontrovertible evidence that Harry had Hermione's company in GoF, but he missed Ron a tremendous amount. I mean, Harry thought about Ron *a lot*, even making mental notes to share things with Ron (Fleur's Veela status), not Hermione. Harry and Ron simply have more in common than Harry and Hermione -- Quiddich, for instance. Harry didn't seem to miss Hermione nearly as much in PoA, to the point of needing to be told by Hagrid that Hermione was feeling isolated. So, yeah, to me it is clear that Ron is Harry's Best Friend at the end of GoF. It's all good though. It really is. Harry values Hermione, too. It's kind of like a parent who has two children. They'll always say they love their children equally. But . . . but, deep down, they might have a favorite. I think that deep down, Ron is Harry's favorite. So, to balance things off, I think I will have to declare myself to be an H/H Shipper. If Ron gets the title "Best Friend to Harry", then Hermione will have to get the title "Best Girl to Harry." Yes. That seems fair. Cindy (who will admit she has a favorite child, but who likes to think she's the only one who knows this) From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Tue May 14 13:54:22 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 13:54:22 -0000 Subject: Kill the Spare (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38735 Kill the Spare (from GoF, Chap. 32) (to the tune of Tom Lehrer's Be Prepared! The Boy Scouts' Marching Song) Dedicated to Amy Z THE SCENE: The cemetery of Little Hangleton, where HARRY and CEDRIC find themselves abruptly Portkeyed after taking the Triwizards Cup CEDRIC: We're now where? HARRY: Hey, it's funny you should ask Say a prayer This is just part of the task CEDRIC: It appears that in some graveyard we've appeared HARRY: That's a subtle sign how things have gotten weird CEDRIC: Let's take care To have our wands out in our hands HARRY: Stay alert! Till we come up with some plans CEDRIC: There's a figure coming toward us with a hood over its face See, it's carrying a bundle as it quickly draws apace HARRY: And it's set for us a trap in which we're snared Unprepared! CEDRIC is killed by Wormtail by the command of the homunculus VOLDEMORT VOLDEMORT (to Wormtail) Kill the spare! That is Voldemort's command Kill the spare! While you still have two good hands. Now that Harry Potter's finally been caught Cedric's quite unnecessary for our plot. Grab him there! And then follow my caprice Tie him down Near where papa rests in peace The purity of James' and Lily's son I'll now pollute I'll permit Harry to watch as I don my re-birthday suit He'll be frightened, he'll be shattered, he'll be scared! He'll despair! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From pennylin at swbell.net Tue May 14 14:08:46 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 09:08:46 -0500 Subject: Ron & Hermione: Equal Best Friends or Not? References: Message-ID: <022e01c1fb50$dd586dc0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38736 Hi -- The debate rages on ....: Catherine pointed out that the wording of the 2nd Task itself does not state that the thing the champion would miss "most" would be taken .... just something the Champion would sorely miss. Jo Serenadust responded: <<>>>> Well, I think focusing on Ron's being Harry's "hostage" and concluding that therefore Ron is the friend that Harry values more is ignoring the overall plot device; missing the forest for the trees so to speak. It's obvious to me that Rowling wanted both Ron & Hermione at the bottom of the Lake. So, she made Hermione into Krum's hostage. Ron couldn't have been the hostage of any of the other Champions, unless she had made Fleur more interested in Ron. But, once at the bottom of the Lake, Harry refuses to prioritize his two best friends. Yes, he's the hero, so he naturally refused to leave *any* of the hostages, *but,* you're completely ignoring that Harry himself identifies Ron and Hermione as both being his friends and then points to Cho & Gabrielle and says "I don't want *them* to die either." He sees 2 levels of hostages down there, not 3. He doesn't see (1) Ron, (2) Hermione, and (3) Cho & Gabrielle. He sees (1) Ron and Hermione, and (2) Cho & Gabrielle. It's abundantly clear to me that this passage, taken together with the several instances in which Harry refers to Hermione as his "other best friend," support the argument that Harry has not prioritized his best friends. <<>> Er.... because he's a wanted fugitive? Would be a bit difficult for Sirius to wade out of the Lake after being rescued & wave "Ta, ta" to the MOM judges assembled on the shore. <<)>>>> But, aside from there being no canon evidence for this, why would they need to discern the true feelings of each Champion? As Catherine pointed out, the Task was not about retrieving the thing that each Champion valued *most* in life. It was about retrieving something the Champion would value (or someone as it turns out). It wouldn't take much magic (or rocket science) for the Staff of each school to figure out who the Champion's friends were and choose one. They didn't need to know which one might matter *the most.* <<>>>>> And so .... Hermione is only Harry's friend (and tolerated as part of the Trio) because of the assets she brings to the relationship? Her friendship isn't enough? Really? Really??! Did you forget about this?: "But from that moment on, Hermione Granger became their friend. There are some things you can't share without ending up liking each other, and knocking out a twelve-foot mountain troll is one of them." It doesn't say, "And from that moment on, Harry and Ron realized that Hermione was very smart and could bring them valuable knowledge which would help them in coming adventures and would nag them into getting things done and so they tolerated her presence." <<<>>>>>> I don't think Hermione merely serves to encourage Harry & Ron to do their best work. In any case, as I read your argument, it stands thus: (1) Harry's hostage in the Lake was Ron; therefore, Ron is a more valued friend than Hermione. I've already shown that this is a flawed argument, because the Task itself was not set to have the Champion retrieve the thing he would miss *most,* just something he would sorely miss. And, as I pointed out, Harry himself equalizes Ron and Hermione in importance at the bottom of the Lake. (2) Harry's thoughts that being cooped up in the Library with Hermione was far less fun than when he was also friends with Ron. I think this is weak in support of the notion that he values Hermione's *friendship* less than he does Ron's friendship. It only shows that he still prefers male companionship at this point in his life, and this seems perfectly natural. But, when push comes to shove, at the bottom of the Lake, Harry refuses to choose and he affirmatively, unequivocally puts Hermione on the same level as Ron as his "friend" and then lumps Cho & Gabrielle together. Also, whenever he is away from Hogwarts and thinking about his friends, this is what he says: *** "more even than playing Quidditch, Harry missed his *best friends* (*plural*....*plural*), Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger" (CoS, Chapter 1) *** "Whatever you've heard about my greatness is a load of rubbish. I'm not even top of my year at Hogwarts, that's Hermione, she --" But he stopped quickly because thinking about Hermione was painful." (CoS, Chapter 2) *** "Harry's other best friend from Hogwarts, Hermione Granger, hadn't been in touch either. Harry suspected that Ron had warned Hermione not to call, which was a pity, because Hermione, the cleverest witch in Harry's year, had Muggle parents, new perfectly well how to use a telephone, and would probably have had enough sense not to say that she went to Hogwarts" (PoA, Chapter 1) *** "He looked hopelessly around his room, and his eyes paused on the cards his two best friends had sent him at the end of July. ...And so he tried to imagine his other best friend Ron Weasley's reaction...." It is a complete & utter mystery to me how JKR could be any more crystal clear that Ron and Hermione are equally valued and both *best friends.* It's always plural. They both get the adjective "best" used. Even Ron gets billed as his "other best friend." Ron isn't "Harry's best best friend." For once, I'm quite grateful for those summarizing recaps at the beginning of each book. Nicely serves to reinforce the notion that Harry has *two* *best* friends. Period. Sorry, Cindy -- I see you've weighed in. Even declaring yourself an H/H shipper doesn't win you any points on this one. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue May 14 14:15:31 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:15:31 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Memory Charm Neville Meets Reverse Memory Charm Neville (WAS ToadKeeper M In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38737 Nuria wrote: > I do like this theory. In fact, IIRC there's no evidence in canon >that Neville has a memory charm cast on him. To be fair, there is *some* evidence in canon for Memory Charm Neville, although there is certainly no *direct* evidence. The clues are there, which is why many people believe in that theory. Um, I'm hardly the best person to summarize Memory Charm Neville canon because I don't buy the argument. But basically the Memory Charm Neville believers might say: 1. Memory Charms are used extensively in canon, whereas there is no such thing as a Reverse Memory Charm. Reverse Memory Charm believers outwardly scoff at this argument (although inside we are deeply shaken by it). *Of course* JKR hasn't mentioned Reverse Memory Charms yet, we cry! It's supposed to be one of the Big Plot Twists in OoP, so she doesn't want to give it away. 2. Neville appears to have a faulty memory, which is one of the hallmarks of a traditional Memory Charm. 3. Somehow many of us take for granted that Neville was *right there*, a cowering, helpless child listening to his parents tortured shrieks, although there isn't a shred of canon to support this assertion. So why do so many of us take Neville's presence as a given? Because it is irresistably Bangy! It's a *huge* explosive Bang! I mean, how can it possibly be that Neville was off spending some Quality Time bonding with Formidable Gran and Bent Great Uncle Algie while Frank and his wife are being tortured half-to-death by Mrs. Lestrange, Mr. Lestrange, Crouch Jr. and Fourth Man? JKR, a closeted Banger, would *never* write Neville's backstory so that he misses out on all that pain. Eh, there's probably more, but one of the Memory Charm people will have to step in here, because I can't put any "Oomph" into explaining Memory Charm Neville. I just can't. What I'm unclear on, Memory Charm believers, is who you think put the charm on Neville. I mean, Tabouli really went after you Memory Charm folks in Message 37,695. She explained how the Memory Charm theory doesn't make sense if you believe Neville's family put the charm on him to spare him pain or if you believe DEs put the Memory Charm on Neville to cover their tracks. I don't recall that anyone has really explained *who* would have put a Memory Charm on Neville. Anyone? Anyone? But Reverse Memory Charm Neville believers are quite clear on who put that charm on Neville -- Moody, under orders from Crouch Sr., that's who. Nuria: >However, given that he was > indeed a toddler when his parents were crucio'd, it is more likely >a Reverse Memory Charm had been used on him (this is what we >Muggles call Regressive Hypnosis!) Raven: > I just couldn't help wondering, if Harry can relive > the deaths of his parents that occurred when he was 15 > months old, isn't it quite possible Neville could have > similar memories even without magical assistance? > Granted, it could be that Harry is extra-special in > this regard as in others, but OTOH it could be common > in the wizarding world for memories, especially > traumatic ones, to persist from infancy.<<<< Hmmm. I don't think we can really say that wizarding tykes have more memories at a young age than muggle tykes. Harry went through a traumatic experience at age 15 months when he was practically blasted out of his mother's arms by the Most Evil Dark Wizard who ever lived and the whole house fell down around his head. I get the impression that Voldemort was no Looker back then either, so this should have been terribly scary for Harry. Yet Harry remembers nothing other than some green light until under the influence of a dementor. And no one felt the need to come in and give Harry a Memory Charm to spare him these memories. So should Neville (age 2 or younger) be traumatized by the screams of his parents? Unlikely. But let's say he was. Does that justify the benevolent use of a Mega Memory Charm to make the boy forget this for 13 years? Would Neville's family do this and knowingly damage his memory and impair his magical ability given how hung up they are on this whole "family honor" concept? And, for cryin' out loud, if they are so darn worried about making sure Neville forgets what happens to his parents, why to they go out of their way to take him to St. Mungos? Are they just hoping the Memory Charm will finally break and Neville will go to pieces right there at St. Mungos? Sheez, Neville's family can't be *that* bent. Cindy (thinking Reverse Memory Charm Neville ought to be a paddleboat because it requires so darn much energy to keep the thing moving) From heidit at netbox.com Tue May 14 14:51:33 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 14:51:33 -0000 Subject: Cheese... Ambition.. Ron... Hermione... Harry... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38738 This is a catchrest post and thus I'm going to divide it into sections, so you can skip to one, or at least know when I'm transitioning from one line of thought to another: Prelude: Cheese and the "classic" paradigm Queen of Slytherin wrote: > Oh I digress. A love triangle may be a bit interesting, but it is > not exactly the best plot out there. It is overused and so much like > Dawson's Creek. And as I said in a previous post, it is tacky, > mediocre, melodramatic, and soap-operatic. And Jo wrote: > I also hope that no inter-trio romantic triangle develops -- what > a cheap, cheesy development that would be I'm going to reiterate Penny's wonderful (although not completely complete :) list of "Classics" which contain a very low level of cheese, right here: <> I went out last Thursday with some other HP fans and we discussed literature which doesn't contain love triangles and we came up wtih the following: Billy Budd Moby Dick (not a love triangle, at least) Animal Farm (ah, orwellianism!) various Sherlock Holmes stories Their Eyes Were Watching God Hamlet The Old Man & The Sea And a few other classics which do have 'em: Lolita, Scarlett Letter, Gone with the Wind, the Little House on the Prarie series (later books), The Three Musketeers, Les Miserables and 1984. Any longer lists should probably find their way to OT Chatter. 1. The nature of friendship I've been amazed at all the different descriptions of friendship that have come over the list in the past few days. I have a bundle of wonderful friends in Real Life, and count among that number guys and girls who I've been friends with since we were in college over ten years ago - and yes, I was friends with guys all the way through growing up - some of those guys I had crushes on, others, I didn't. And everyone sees the friendship among Harry and Ron and Hermione through that prism - and I'm not saying I am any different. I see it as a friendship where each person brings things to the table, but also, the same way we were discussing Dumbledore's (IMHO OOC) decision to change from Slytherin to Gryffindor during the Leaving Feast in Book 1, certain things are done for literary purposes, not because they would necessarily have happened that way in the real world. Furthermore, we don't see their day-to-day interactions, again, for literary purposes, and thus there are huge chunks of their relationships that we just don't know about in the same detail that we know these - of course, the "rules" of literature make it clear that we know the important things in their lives, the conversations and things which make an impact on their characters. B wrote: > Hermione has always struck me as the type who enjoys having her ideas > challenged, if for no other reason that it gives her the opportunity > to prove herself right. Like many of us on this list, I don't think > Hermione would bother 'giving back' to Ron if she wasn't on some > level enjoying herself in the process. I think B is right on this assessment, although I don't agree at all with Jo when she said: > There's > certainly no reason she couldn't just walk away from Ron when their > arguments get heated. She never does, though, and it seems very > important to her that she stay engaged in the conflict until it > blows itself out. Clearly, Hermione loves a good debate, and she (like, um, me) doesn't let debates about things which she cares about, but which are, to some extent, not personal to her (like the house elves issue, or some prejudice issues, or even homework) affect her enthusiasm for debating them. However, when Ron's comments get really mean and nasty and personal, like they did at the Yule Ball, she does walk right away from him. "Ron," said Harry quietly, "I haven't got a problem withHermione coming with Krum-" But Ron ignored Harry too. "Why don't you go and find Vicky, he'll be wondering where you are," said Ron. "*Don't call him Vicky!" Hermione jumped to her feet and stormed off across the dance floor, disappearing into the crowd. Ron watched her go with a mixture of anger and satisfaction on his face. ************* Satisfaction? That he made her cry? And he's *satisfied* by that? What a mean and obnoxious thing to do! What a horrible thing to feel! How dare he? I think this scene is very evocative of Hermione's feeling that when Ron gets too pushy and too mean, she will just walk away. And of course, even people who are married occasionally push each other too far - sometimes over stupid things like where in the baby's room will the bambi rug go, but other times, people really get on each others' cases about more monumental things. And perhaps it's just me, but I can see why someone could deal with debates about world issues, art, musical tastes (my husband hates 90% of what I love, and vice versa, for example), or which weekly newsmagazine to get, but be unable to respond to a personal attack in any way other than leaving the conversation. (side note - I think no discussion of the ron&hermione conversation in the common room afterwards can ignore the fact that the last time they'd talked that evening, she'd run off crying, but that's for another post.) I also think that it's easy to say that Hermione could just end her friendship with Ron if it stressed her too much, but it's very hard if not impossible for her to actually do that for various reasons. First, she would lose a lot of Harry. While I think that their relationship is balanced at this time, if she suddenly decided that she wanted to move away from her friendship with Ron, then Harry might be in the same situation he was in in Book 5, in terms of having to spend time with them separately (and yes, there's an indication in Book 3 that off the page, he talks to Hermione to try and get her to talk with Ron) and that would naturally reduce the amount of time she could spend with him. There's also an implication that she's friends with Ginny outside her friendship with Ron & Harry. If she had a falling out with Ron, would she feel so confident that her friendship with Ginny would survive it? When friends are so intertwined, it's hard to pick up threads of other friendships if the ties to one friend change radically. Of course, i don't think she really does want out at this point - but if she did, she'd spend a lot of time thinking the implications through. Dave wrote: > He is not forced to spend time with Ron because he has > fallen out with Hermione - Harry has never truly fallen out with > her. It's not hard to imagine that if Hermione was refusing to talk > to him he would also find Ron relatively dull. Not necessarily, but Harry certainly felt incredibly antisocial even when he was walking around Hogsmeade with Ron - hence his use of the invisibility cloak. If he was only friends with Ron, I think his personality would be developing differently - he'd be more inclined to slack off, to play instead of to get things done, and to disregard rules just for the sake of enjoyment, like he did by going to Hogsmeade that day. 2. The rules of attraction Dave wrote: > At the same time, they have very different > perceptions of what is important in life, and of the right way to > act. I believe their bickering stems from their unwillingness to > acknowledge the value of this difference; instead, they are engaged > in a continual power struggle over their two world-views. This is > expressed in arguments about, for example, how homework should be > tackled. > > *However*, the fact that they engage in this power struggle is one of > the main indicators to me that there is more to their relationship. > Why doesn't Hermione just give up on Ron's attitude to homework? Why > doesn't Ron accept Hermione's attachment to the library? Each of > them wants to be responsible for the other in a way that, IMO, is > uncharacteristic of friendship that is happy with the state it's at. I don't really understand the last sentence. What do you mean a friendship that's happy with the state that it's at? How can there be such a thing among teenagers, who are learning and growing and changing every day? Their personalities are developing, their focuses are changing - even their interests can change as they discover new things. And there's nothing wrong with trying to convince your friends that something is missing in their lives. I mean, how many of you have NOT tried to get one friend - one family member - one colleague - to read the HP books? On OT Chatter here, people are always posting about new books, evangelizing about movies, saying You Must See/Try/Do this! That's what a sig file is for - you put links to your fanfics, or your website, or your FILKs, to encourage people to look them over. And you do this so your friends will be happier people, once they've discovered the wonderful thing you enjoy so much. Does that mean we're not happy with our online or our RL friendships as they are? Or does it mean we want to make others happy by leading them to try/do/see things they wouldn't try/do/see otherwise? 3. The concept of "dating" Queen of Slytherin wrote: > C'mon, in real life, it's awkward enough to date one of your best > friends, then break up with that friend, then go on and date your > other best friend, who happens to be also one of the best friends of > your ex. Too true. I spent part of this weekend at my reunion, which was also attended by a classmate (call her R) who married her ex-best- friend's ex-fiance. It's a difficult situation for everyone, believe me. But R also had 3 dates with the man who is now my husband, and that hasn't caused anyone any angst. Another friend of mine is married to a wonderful guy (also a friend of mine) despite the fact that before they got together, she'd dated two of his fraternity brothers, and he'd dated one of her good friends. No awkwardness at all. And these aren't rare situations - it happens all the time in colleges (which are similar, in "interactions", to Hogwarts, on various levels) and in social circles where people move in a group together. I actually think it's incredibly realistic and no more soap opera-y than real life. 4. A fine romance Pippin wrote: > IMO, it won't matter if Hermione gets elected > Minister of Magic, discovers the cure for dragonpox, wins the > Order of Merlin and chases a Snitch through London naked on a > broomstick at the age of 75. If H/H happens the Daily Prophet > will still bill her as Harry's partner. Somehow, I don't think she'd > be really happy about that Why not? What parts of her characterization, to date, make you think she wouldn't be happy about it? Penny wrote: > Hermione, OTOH, isn't *currently* going to be too willing to >sublimate her > own ambitions & successes to pacify an insecure boyfriend. I am a little confused by Penny's language here as it was interprited by others, and if I am misdescribing it, please correct me. When Penny says "sublimate" she means in the relationship between the two - Hermione and her Partner. In other words, she wouldn't allow herself to strive for less or work harder outside the home, she wouldn't let herself become less of a professional in whatever line of work she chooses, just to make her partner happy. And Ron's insecurities might lie along those lines, whereas Harry's won't. Harry's ego won't be deflated every time Hermione breaks through another glass ceiling or pulls another accolade. He won't be angry if she makes prefect and he doesn't. Ron, otoh, might. 5. The reasonable solution? Draco/Hermione. No, don't laugh. Go read Pride & Prejudice instead, remember that Draco, as we've seen him, is 14, possibly quite bright, occasionally witty and possibly redeemable. And if... and if... And if he follows in the footsteps of Fitzwilliam Darcy, he'll be a better match for Hermione, as Elizabeth Bennett, than anyone else could be. Yes, I admit it's a big if... but they've both got a bit of growing up to do, and it could happen. And as a side note, Ron's ambition: > If being Head > Boy were really his ambition, he'd be working toward that, which he > clearly is not. What DO we see him working hard at? Finding out > about the Philosopher's Stone, finding out about the Chamber of > Secrets, helping Harry prepare for the second and third tasks of the > Tournament. Are any of these things likely to get him fame and > glory? Barb answered herself by saying, "No." I, OTOH, say, "Absolutely!" What better way to become Head Boy than to help save the world a few times? Especially if a decision is made to not have Harry as Head Boy, who else are they to choose? Draco? Possibly, but the strongest competition for the role, if Dumbledore is one of the decision- makers, would be Ron. We don't know exactly how Head Boy is chosen, but it seems that while grades are part of it, it's unlikely that they're the whole reason behind the choice. Furthermore, it's a very reasonable way to become famous and get glory - Ron learns that lesson, if he didn't know it already, after the second task, when he gets a kiss from Fleur just for helping Gabrielle out of the water, and where he's a center of attention among his fellow students. Even Padma is more interested in him after that. It's glorious. It's a bit of fame. And if he does something really wonderful, like help Harry, even from the background, in defeating Voldemort, he'll have fame, and possibly fortune as well. What a great thing for Ron and his ego! heidi tandy follow me to FictionAlley - Harry Potter fanfics of all shapes, sizes and SHIPS - 7 sickles an ounce! http://www.fictionalley.org From ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com Tue May 14 15:22:47 2002 From: ickle_ronniekins at yahoo.com (Ronald Rae Yu) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 08:22:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Quidditch Brooms (short) Message-ID: <20020514152247.48501.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38739 Doesn't anyone here think it's a bit unfair that different brooms are used in a Quidditch match, with the 'richer' players allowed to have the advantage of using faster brooms? IMO I think it would be more fair if all players are required to use the same type of broom. Cleansweeps they may be, at least the game comes down to pure skill. -Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From pennylin at swbell.net Tue May 14 17:31:33 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 12:31:33 -0500 Subject: Ambition in the Wizarding World (Ron, Percy and Bill) References: <16a.d9b0f02.2a11efc1@aol.com> Message-ID: <026201c1fb6d$31536300$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38740 Hi -- Debbie wrote a *wonderful* post comparing Ron with Percy and Bill, and I'm racking my brains trying to think how to avoid my response being an illegitimate "me too" post. This is really just fascinating .... <<>>> I can definitely buy this. I think Ron *has* ambition. He clearly wants recognition & to "stand out" from his brothers. I agree with Cindy and others that he definitely doesn't take steps toward realizing his goals. But, I was struggling with the notion that he didn't have ambition at all, just because he's not yet taken any steps toward achieving his desires. I like Debbie's approach much better. I especially like this idea that Ron has a profound fear of failure, which leads to him not trying much of anything because, after all, it'd be better to do nothing than to try & fail. I wonder how this particular characteristic, if Debbie's right, would play out in the context of a Ron/Hermione romantic relationship. If he's got a real hang-up about failure, will he even take the steps to try & change the relationship to romance? If he does, how will his fear of failure & Hermione's over-achieving actions mesh? Hmm.... <<<>>>> Yes, and Harry hasn't earned his wealth either, so Ron resents it. <<<>>> Yeah, I've noted that before. I don't know why in the world Molly is so sold on the MOM as a career path under the circumstances, and it's a bit strange really to think that Percy, with his stand-out academic success, would choose that route. Well, other than I suppose it's the most direct path to his alleged goal of wanting to be Minister of Magic. I still say that Percy might well be ambitious in this sense not for power but as a platform for instituting sweeping reforms. Who's the one person who really gets on pretty well with Percy? Hermione. I suspect they've had some conversations about this subject. I think there's more than just a common interest in academics and a common approach to following rules between Percy and Hermione. <<<<>>>>>>> Oh, and one of the Twins (Fred?) killed one of Ron's pets, right? Yes, he used Ron's puffskein for bludger practice. Yes, I think you're on to something with this avoidance of target theory. <<<>>>>>> Yes, yes, yes! That would also explain the particular antipathy that Ron feels with respect to Percy; he's lashing out because somewhere inside, he knows that he's alot more like Percy than he'd care to admit. Oh, yes. I can get behind this theory. Most definitely. <<< He also appears to have a good relationship with both Percy and Ron. Bill and Ron are playing chess together, something that always struck me as significant about their relationship. All could be viewed as signs that Bill plays a mentoring role for Percy and Ron - the kind of mentoring that I think Ron would have benefited receiving from Percy.>>>> Gee, I'd never picked up on those details, but you have some good points there. I'm very intrigued by Bill myself, and seeing your list of interactions between him and his brothers is adding to my desire to get OOP *now.* :--) BTW, I wonder if the tall lanky build is a liability in Quidditch -- could this be one reason Ron hasn't attempted to try out for the Team as a reserve player as far as we know? I'd not really correlated before, but Debbie's right that the Twins share the same build as Charlie, and it's the 3 of them who are the Quidditch players. As far as we know, Bill didn't play Quidditch at Hogwarts, and we know Percy didn't and Ron hasn't so far. Interesting. Great points, Debbie. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From editor at texas.net Tue May 14 17:49:52 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 12:49:52 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quidditch Brooms (short) References: <20020514152247.48501.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <001401c1fb6f$c17386c0$b97663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38741 Ron Yu asked > Doesn't anyone here think it's a bit unfair that > different brooms are used in a Quidditch match, with > the 'richer' players allowed to have the advantage of > using faster brooms? IMO I think it would be more fair > if all players are required to use the same type of > broom. Cleansweeps they may be, at least the game > comes down to pure skill. The difference in brooms follows the style of school administration. It tends to be rather "hands off," allowing students to learn not only their lessons, but some life lessons as well--like life isn't always fair. Other students may have better brooms. People in authority may not be open-minded or even-handed. You won't always get heard. Etc. [I personally feel that this is a better approach than one finds in many American schools, where we lead students to believe that the world is fair and you are owed a level playing field; it ain't the case, and it's unfair to expect kids to learn it when they hit college, after having been kid-gloved for twelve years.] So no, I think it's fine that the brooms differ. And as for bringing it down to pure skill, well, how well one can work with the tools one has is an important aspect of sharpening skills. --Amanda From ganvira1 at hotmail.com Tue May 14 17:23:33 2002 From: ganvira1 at hotmail.com (Terry van Ettinger) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 10:23:33 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quidditch Brooms (short) References: <20020514152247.48501.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38742 Perhaps, although if you look at real-world sports where each player has their own gear, I think there are differences there. I don't think, for example, in skiing, that they all use the same skis. I'm pretty sure that in speed skating, I've heard them talk about how one skater had one type of skate and someone else was using something different. Also, if you think about it, if one team's richer player has the better broom, who's to say that the other side might not have someone as rich who has an equally higher-quality broom. And it does come down to skill in the ond, because if player 1 isn't as skilled as player 2, but player 1 has the better broom, I would think player 2's still going to have the advantage since it takes skill no matter what kind of gear you've got. Terry ----- Original Message ----- From: Ronald Rae Yu To: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sent: Tuesday, May 14, 2002 8:22 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quidditch Brooms (short) Doesn't anyone here think it's a bit unfair that different brooms are used in a Quidditch match, with the 'richer' players allowed to have the advantage of using faster brooms? IMO I think it would be more fair if all players are required to use the same type of broom. Cleansweeps they may be, at least the game comes down to pure skill. -Ron Yu __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com 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 foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 14 19:05:08 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 19:05:08 -0000 Subject: Ron... Hermione... Draco [SHIP] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38743 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "heiditandy" wrote: (quoting GoF) > "Ron," said Harry quietly, "I haven't got a problem withHermione > coming with Krum-" > But Ron ignored Harry too. > "Why don't you go and find Vicky, he'll be wondering where you are," said Ron. > "*Don't call him Vicky!" Hermione jumped to her feet and stormed off > across the dance floor, disappearing into the crowd. > Ron watched her go with a mixture of anger and satisfaction on his face. > ************* > Satisfaction? > That he made her cry? Um, excuse me, does it say that he made her cry?? She storms off, and the next time we see her, on page 429 of the US hardcover, she's dancing with Viktor Krum. Heidi continues: > And he's *satisfied* by that? > What a mean and obnoxious thing to do! What a horrible thing to feel! How dare he? IMO, he's satisfied that she's angry about what he said--because it means she still cares what he thinks. Not very noble, but not as obnoxious as all that, from a kid who thinks Uranus jokes are funny. Heidi appends a note: >>> I think no discussion of the ron&hermione conversation in the common room afterwards can ignore the fact that the last time they'd talked that evening, she'd run off crying, but that's for another post.)<<<<< She stormed off, she went dancing and before she went upstairs, she gave Ron "a very cold look." I don't recall her crying at anything Ron does or says in GoF except when he makes up with Harry. Heidi makes a modest proposal: > 5. The reasonable solution? > > Draco/Hermione. > > No, don't laugh. Go read Pride & Prejudice instead, remember that Draco, as we've seen him, is 14, possibly quite bright, occasionally witty and possibly redeemable Er, right. Ron manages to push Hermione's buttons, though *not* enough to put her in tears, unless I'm missing something. This disqualifies him, I suppose, as a potential boyfriend. How dare he be annoyed with her, even though she's been teasing him for a week by not telling him who she was taking to the ball. Draco, of course, only wants her to be murdered. This is quite a pardonable fault because, um, he's rich and blond, and doesn't say crude things, except when he's referring to Hermione's knickers, of course. Honestly! Pippin From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Tue May 14 19:08:58 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:08:58 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quidditch Brooms (short) Message-ID: <20.28d4f114.2a12baca@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38744 Well, for awhile there Draco had a better broom than Harry, but Harry beat him anyway :) From huntleyl at mssm.org Tue May 14 20:13:27 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 16:13:27 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ambition in the Wizarding World (Ron, Percy and Bill) References: <16a.d9b0f02.2a11efc1@aol.com> <026201c1fb6d$31536300$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: <001001c1fb83$cf5f4760$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 38745 Debbie said: <<<>>> I have a feeling that it's Arthur and Molly's erm..lack of frugality that makes it so hard for Arthur to support the family with his MoM job. I mean...they win a large pile of gold -- and what do they do with it? Why, take a big family trip, of course! On the other hand, it is arguable that spending all the money you may have on pleasures for the Now is actually wiser than saving up. However, it would have been nice if they had put a *little* away..buy Ron some nicer robes.. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue May 14 19:58:01 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 12:58:01 -0700 Subject: Draco/Hermione-Ron (SHIP) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <124836245987.20020514125801@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38746 Hi, Tuesday, May 14, 2002, 7:51:33 AM, heiditandy wrote: > 5. The reasonable solution? > > Draco/Hermione. > > No, don't laugh. Go read Pride & Prejudice instead, remember that > Draco, as we've seen him, is 14, possibly quite bright, occasionally > witty and possibly redeemable. And if... and if... And if he follows > in the footsteps of Fitzwilliam Darcy, he'll be a better match for > Hermione, as Elizabeth Bennett, than anyone else could be. Yes, I > admit it's a big if... but they've both got a bit of growing up to > do, and it could happen. So, Draco is 14, possibly redeemable, maybe bright and Ron is what? Mean, rotten to the core, on an irreversible downward slide? Why does Draco seem to come off better than Ron? This really doesn't make any sense to me, especially looking at what you said about Ron earlier: > Satisfaction? > That he made her cry? > And he's *satisfied* by that? > What a mean and obnoxious thing to do! What a horrible thing to > feel! How dare he? Hermione stormed off angry, but didn't cry, for one thing. But what about Draco and the things he's said and done to Hermione? Does that all fall under the "He's only 14 and can change" rule? While this is true, it's true for all of them, Ron, too! -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From lupinesque at yahoo.com Tue May 14 20:09:15 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 20:09:15 -0000 Subject: What Harry will miss the most In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38747 Catherine... > wanted to > make a really annoying, nitpicky, LOON-y point. > > According to canon, Ron is *not* the one thing that Harry will miss > the most. The line in the song is: > > "We've taken what you'll sorely miss," not, what he would miss the > most. The "miss most" line came from Dobby, who heard this second > hand: > > "The thing Harry Potter will miss most, sir!" To be even more annoying and nitpicky, that information does not come only from Dobby. The school at large and/or the narrative voice also interprets the hostage as the thing the Champion will miss most: "People had been teasing her so much about being the thing that Viktor Krum would most miss that she was in a rather tetchy mood." (GF 21) But that isn't the line that makes me think JKR sets Hermione slightly below Ron in best-friend ranking. We can always reason that Krum needed a hostage so Harry's had to be Ron. Nor am I particularly concerned with the line about a lot more laughter and a lot less studying--sure, that's just where Harry is right now, very much in need of a laugh, so it isn't clear that forced to choose, he'd say Ron is his very best friend. I might even be able to dismiss Harry's ease with being on no speaking terms with Hermione in PA (for 5 weeks, *twice as long* as he is with Ron the next year) as just reflecting the different dynamics of the instigating fight--he closed the door on Hermione, which might be less upsetting to him than Ron's refusing to believe him, hence the difference in his responses to the two fallings-out. No, what made me want to scream like Penny (because (a) I identify strongly with Hermione and (b) I want to see the Trio as a perfectly balanced friendship) was the exact phrasing of that line: "There was much less laughter, and a lot more hanging around in the library when Hermione was your best friend." What a peculiar way to put it: "...when Hermione was your best friend." If you were talking about two best friends, perfectly equal, and now one of them is currently NOT a best friend, is this how you would phrase it? Wouldn't you say "...now that Hermione was his only best friend"? Or "...when you were spending time with Hermione"? The way she phrases it sets up a time when *someone else* was his best friend. It's upsetting, and it's out of keeping with various references to his "two best friends" and the apparent equity between them in most places, but it is the way I heard that line when I first read it and on every reading since. I can only hope it's just a swing of the friendship pendulum (after all, even the most perfectly balanced trio of friends constantly loses and regains equilibrium as two get closer, two more distant, two fight, two make up, etc.). Amy Z From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 14 21:34:35 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 21:34:35 -0000 Subject: Ambition in the Wizarding World (Ron, Percy and Bill) In-Reply-To: <026201c1fb6d$31536300$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38748 Debbie: > <<>>> Penny: >>> I can definitely buy this. I think Ron *has* ambition. He clearly wants recognition & to "stand out" from his brothers. <<< Dumbledore's exact words were "standing alone, the best of all of them." Ron doesn't want to stand out, exactly, he wants his family out of the picture entirely. Yet he clearly loves them. I have some thoughts about this. In the Weasley family, all the children are loved, but it seems that new stuff goes to children only when they have distinguished themselves. Examples: Percy gets new robes for being a prefect and an owl for being made Head Boy, Ron gets his new wand (instead of another second-hand one) after winning his Award for Special Services to the School. This must be particularly hard on Ron, because being 6th in line, things are going to be very worn by the time he gets them. Also because there are two twins who resemble Charlie, and only one Ron, who resembles Percy and Bill, Ron's clothes are going to have had two previous users, whereas the twins have 50/50 odds of not getting a brother's hand-me-down at all. The children have found different ways of playing the family game. Bill and Charlie were Head Boy and Quidditch star but have now have opted out (interesting that they both relocated at a distance from the family). Percy plays to win.The twins have turned the game upside down by distinguishing themselves at things Molly can't approve. Ginny starts with a leg up as the only girl, though she too is given hand me downs to start school. Ron has decided not to play, but occasionally, when he has to do without a new broom or a nice set of dress robes, it gets on his nerves. I think if Ron can sort out his feelings so he can seek success without feeling manipulated by his mother, he'll be able to plan his future with as much enthusiasm as he tackles chess. Hermione, who certainly seems very self-directed, might set a good example there. I think Ron might have the makings of an Auror, whatever Crouch!Moody didn't say. For one thing, Ron has the most enthusiasm for investigating. I'm sure he'd be the most bored of the Trio if JKR were so unfeeling as to give them a year with no mystery to solve. Crouch's opinions on the matter are suspect: we know Harry is being taunted and perhaps Hermione is too. If pure-blood Arthur Weasley is held back at the Ministry by mere sympathy for Muggles, what obstacles would a Muggle born witch face? Ron is the one who presents an actual threat. Debbie: > <<<>>> Penny: >>>> Yeah, I've noted that before. I don't know why in the world Molly is so sold on the MOM as a career path under the circumstances, and it's a bit strange really to think that Percy, with his stand-out academic success, would choose that route. <<<< I think she's not so much pro-MOM as anti-joke-shop. She'd be delighted to have the twins go into a profession but they apparently haven't got the O.W.L.s for that. We know there's a pretty strong class system in the wizarding world, judging by Draco's attitude toward servants, and what the twins say about old families and manor houses. The Weasleys have no family fortune, but at least they aren't "in trade." I think Molly might view owning a shop as an awful comedown for a Weasley, only slightly better than being an accountant. Penny: >>>>> BTW, I wonder if the tall lanky build is a liability in Quidditch -- could this be one reason Ron hasn't attempted to try out for the Team as a reserve player as far as we know? I'd not really correlated before, but Debbie's right that the Twins share the same build as Charlie, and it's the 3 of them who are the Quidditch players. As far as we know, Bill didn't play Quidditch at Hogwarts, and we know Percy didn't and Ron hasn't so far. Interesting.<<<< Long, lean Tom Riddle doesn't seem to have been a Quidditch player either. Maybe JKR has jockeys in mind. Pippin From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue May 14 21:54:23 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 21:54:23 -0000 Subject: What Harry will miss the most/Liking Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38749 Amy wrote: > No, what made me want to scream like Penny (because (a) I identify > strongly with Hermione and (b) I want to see the Trio as a perfectly > balanced friendship) was the exact phrasing of that line: > > "There was much less laughter, and a lot more hanging around in the > library when Hermione was your best friend." > > What a peculiar way to put it: "...when Hermione was your best > friend." Oh, I had never read it quite that way, but that is a very good way to read it. Good observation, Amy. When I step back and view things from a bit of a distance, I'm also left with the impression that Ron is The Best Friend for another reason: the emotional impact on Harry when he has conflict with Ron vs. Hermione. In PoA, Harry's estrangement with Hermione just sort of happens and, as I mentioned earlier, Hagrid has to call Harry's attention to Hermione's (um, what's the word?) suffering. In GoF, *Harry* suffers tremendously when he is estranged from Ron. For instance, what is the *very first thing* Harry thinks about when he wakes up the morning after his name comes out of the Goblet? That he will be embarrassed or killed in the Tournament? That he can't understand how this all happened? No. It is that Ron doesn't believe him. And when Harry and Ron reconcile, Hermione is right there, but JKR has Hermione *exit the scene.* The fight with Ron in GoF is much Bigger than the fight with Hermione in PoA in terms of the impact on Harry -- suggesting to me that Ron is a more significant influence, i.e. Best Friend, than Hermione. Amy: > It's upsetting, and it's out of keeping with various references to his > "two best friends" and the apparent equity between them in most > places, but it is the way I heard that line when I first read it and > on every reading since. But . . . but . . . why is it upsetting? I mean, it doesn't bother me at all if Ron is the Best Friend and Hermione is . . . something else. Why is it so important that Hermione rate with Ron on this issue so that the Trio is perfectly in balance? Maybe I have trouble seeing this because I like Ron *so* much more as a character than Hermione. I mean, Ron has *Edge*, or, at least, I think he does. He's always interesting. His dialogue is much more witty and snappy. He's unpredictable. He might even be Tough (he hasn't wept yet, IIRC). I'd guess that most readers feel that way based on JKR's statement that everyone begs her not to kill Ron, but few fans plead with her to spare Hermione. So that's the question: Why work so hard to award Hermione Best Friend status? Cindy (who has wondered from time to time if Hermione is Tough, but isn't sure she wants to know the answer) From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue May 14 22:04:08 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 22:04:08 -0000 Subject: Ambition, Triwizard tasks, Bible, Am Darcy fool, R/H, filk Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38750 Cindy wondered about the place of ambition in the Potterverse, with examples. I think she's right, that JKR is tempting us to think that it's wrong to be ambitious. It is the defining characteristic of Slytherin, who are set up as the bad guys. I think there are three possibilities: 1) JKR thinks ambition is a bad thing, and wants to teach her readers that. 2) JKR has decided that ambition, rightly directed ('I want to be the first to discover a cure for cancer') is a good thing, but wants to lead us a merry dance first through various suspect and downright evil expressions of ambition. I think this is the most likely possibility. However, there is possibility 3) which may not have occurred to everybody: 3) JKR has been brought up to believe ambition is a bad thing, and may herself be working through her feelings about it. What triggered this reflection was Penny's remark that she likes Ron the less because he grouses without doing anything positive to improve his lot, and the speculation that in the US ambition and hard work to better yourself are better regarded than in Britain. Many British people would like to be rich and famous; they mostly do two things in furtherance of this aim: they play the lottery, and they read magazines which describe the lives of the rich and famous. While Ron is not really like that, he is not a million miles removed from that cultural pattern. We don't like ambitious people. We don't trust them, because we may only be their stepping stones. They are viewed as having no loyalty, except to themselves. If they succeed, they make us feel worse, because if only we'd pulled our socks up we might have got where they are. If they fail, we take comfort that we made the right decision to stay in obscurity. It is a common belief that if someone is rich, they cheated, they inherited it, or they were lucky. "Only fools and horses work hard" because if you work hard it's a sign you are being exploited; you certainly won't reap the reward of your work. So, I think Ron's lack of drive and his general skipping homework, doing it at the last minute, de-valuing academic knowledge and preferring sport are all typical of the values English boys in particular are expected to hold. Read the Beano or the Dandy. He is possibly meant to be a sympathetic character because of these things. How does all this go down in the can-do land of laissez-faire capitalism and the frontier spirit? Australians, Canadians, Germans and others, any thoughts? Cincy also found the second Task FLINT-y. I see what you mean. There is another thing that's unclear to me: are the tasks chosen by the judges, or are they in some way a product of the Goblet? If Dobby is in fact correct about 'the thing you miss most' (that elf- magic again) and Sirius had in fact been what Harry missed most, would the inviolable, inevitable, infallible, unavoidable magic of the contest have *forced* Sirius to join in, fugitive or no? It strikes me as odd that the Goblet is so powerful that there is no escaping the tasks for Harry, yet it appears that the actual construction of the tasks is somewhat ad hoc. Where's the Destiny in that? Dicentra scribbled: "I myself am not sure to what degree Harry will turn out to be a Christ figure, if at all, but at the same time the Biblical 'correspondences' shouldn't be underplayed if they are numerous enough and distinct enough. Using the Bible as a Rosetta stone to understand HP is not a random comparison: JKR is a believing Christian living in a society where Biblical allegory and imagery forms an enormous part of the literary history. She is deliberately encoding the books with symbols of her choosing for the purpose of making a richer and more meaningful story. She would lose her audience if she used symbols with which we were not likely to be familiar. If we were using the Upanishads or the Popol Vuh to interpret the imagery, I think the 'correspondences' theory would hold more water, so to speak." I didn't mean there are no Biblical parallels in HP. I think my point is in your phrase about numerous and distinct - I think the way the symbols relate to each other to form pervasive patterns in both books is important too. Also, the importance (in the Biblical context) of the symbol matters too. So, sacrificial death, or death- and-resurection patterns in HP *do* recall the Bible - e.g. I see Lily as the nearest Christ-parallel (and Voldemort an anti-Christ parallel with his 'resurrection'). Conversely, I would see the four houses and the four horsemen of the apocalypse, say, as a coincidence. In-between, I can't decide whether the resemblances between the Chamber of Secrets and the Holy of Holies are conscious in JKR's mind, a lucky chance, or evidence of Jung's theory of archetypes. All I was saying is that it's difficult and there are pitfalls. I admit I am finicky about getting the rules of interpretation of things right, and don't want to stop others having their fun. Eloise mentioned that she finds Harry un-Christ-like. (Great post, BTW - I liked the idea that Voldemort is the *corruption* of Slytherin: there's quite a lot of mileage in that for another thread) I agree, not least because it would be a brave author indeed who made their POV character a Christ-figure. Reader expectations are all geared to a Pilgrim's Progress view of their literary characters: if I am Harry, and there is a Christian message here, then surely Harry should be the typical (in the full sense of the word) Christian. Heidi put forward the interesting suggestion that Jane Austen got her fanfic in early. I'm just sorry that such a noted author should have messed up her reading of Draco so badly: all that stuff about being raised with good principles seems to me to have no canon foundation. Better luck next time, Jane!, and avoid those love triangles - the public doesn't like 'em. Heidi again, responding to me about Hermione and Ron: Me: >>Each of > them wants to be responsible for the other in a way that, IMO, is > uncharacteristic of friendship that is happy with the state it's at. Heidi > I don't really understand the last sentence. What do you mean a friendship that's happy with the state that it's at? How can there be such a thing among teenagers, who are learning and growing and changing every day? Their personalities are developing, their focuses are changing - even their interests can change as they discover new things. Of course. But I think that change happens unconsciously for the most part. (Not to deny that teenagers can spend ages analysing the exact state of their friendships - I wonder do any of H, H &R lie awake at night wondering which of the other two is their *best* friend? Whether either of the other two sees *them* as their best friend?) I hope with adults too. My point, not explained very well, was that both of them are trying to force the relationship to change. > And there's nothing wrong with trying to convince your friends that something is missing in their lives. I don't really see Hermione as enthusiastically telling Ron: "I 've just discovered this wonderful thing called homework! You really should try it!" Her normal approach is moral pressure - to the extent that she has trouble persuading Ron of her genuine excitement over finding Dobby. Caius: >I'll permit Harry to watch as I don my re-birthday suit He'll be frightened As am I! David From Ahketsi at aol.com Tue May 14 22:08:16 2002 From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:08:16 EDT Subject: Quidditch Brooms (short) Message-ID: <99.2674eb78.2a12e4d0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38751 In a message dated 5/14/2002 2:14:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ganvira1 at hotmail.com writes: > . And it does come down to skill in the ond, because if player 1 isn't as > skilled as player 2, but player 1 has the better broom, I would think > player 2's still going to have the advantage since it takes skill no matter > what kind of gear you've got. > > Yes, but if two people are skilled, and one has the better broom, then he's got quite an advantage. Especially if that broom is a firebolt. The truth is it isn't fair and the school ought to provide decent brooms for all the kids to use, IMO. Like nimbus2000s. In a message dated 5/14/2002 1:58:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time, editor at texas.net writes: > The difference in brooms follows the style of school administration. It > tends to be rather "hands off," allowing students to learn not only their > lessons, but some life lessons as well--like life isn't always fair. Other > students may have better brooms. People in authority may not be open-minded > or even-handed. You won't always get heard. Etc. [I personally feel that > this is a better approach than one finds in many American schools, where we > lead students to believe that the world is fair and you are owed a level > playing field; it ain't the case, and it's unfair to expect kids to learn > it > when they hit college, after having been kid-gloved for twelve years.] > I certainly didn't learn that the world was perfectly fair in High School! I was constantly complaining about unfair rules, if I remember correctly, and I like to think that I do. In fact, I'd go into it, but I'm afraid it would be considered off topic. I think you're looking at it a little too closely. Besides, it seems that Harry has come across plenty of unfairness at Hogwarts. -Ahketsi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ahketsi at aol.com Tue May 14 22:20:05 2002 From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 18:20:05 EDT Subject: Cheese... Ambition.. Ron... Hermione... Harry... Message-ID: <1b8.e53ffa.2a12e795@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38752 In a message dated 5/14/2002 10:55:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, heidit at netbox.com writes: > No, don't laugh. Go read Pride & Prejudice instead, remember that > Draco, as we've seen him, is 14, possibly quite bright, occasionally > witty and possibly redeemable. And if... and if... And if he follows > in the footsteps of Fitzwilliam Darcy, he'll be a better match for > Hermione, as Elizabeth Bennett, than anyone else could be. Yes, I > admit it's a big if... but they've both got a bit of growing up to > do, and it could happen. > I love Pride and prejudice. I think Malfoy is much more... well, evil, than Darcy ever was, but I would love to see him fall in love with Hermione! That would be so interesting, especially since he's said and done some pretty bad stuff to her, so of course she wouldn't really be interested in her. His family is rich too. -Ahketsi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pennylin at swbell.net Tue May 14 22:31:22 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (plinsenmayer) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 22:31:22 -0000 Subject: What Harry will miss the most/Liking Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38753 Hi -- > Amy wrote: > > > No, what made me want to scream like Penny (because (a) I identify strongly with Hermione and (b) I want to see the Trio as a > perfectly balanced friendship) was the exact phrasing of that line: > "There was much less laughter, and a lot more hanging around in > the library when Hermione was your best friend." > > > > What a peculiar way to put it: "...when Hermione was your best > > friend." She's his "best friend" because he doesn't have an "other best friend" at that moment. Yes, the word "only" would make it more clear. But, there's absolute 100% consistency on this issue in all 4 of the books, unlike many other issues. I'd say JKR has always approached this with the view that Ron and Hermione are both equally important to Harry. I can chalk this one up to sloppy editing. Cindy: > When I step back and view things from a bit of a distance, I'm also left with the impression that Ron is The Best Friend for another reason: the emotional impact on Harry when he has conflict with Ron vs. Hermione. In PoA, Harry's estrangement with Hermione just sort of happens and, as I mentioned earlier, Hagrid has to call Harry's attention to Hermione's (um, what's the word?) suffering.>>> In PoA, the sequence of events is thus: (a) Hermione reports the Firebolt to McGonagall and both boys are angry, but Ron is *furious*. Harry, though angry, thinks that Hermione was acting with his best interests at heart. (b) Hermione starts avoiding them both (c) After some time, the Firebolt is returned, and what does Harry say: "You know what -- we should make it up with Hermione. She was only trying to help." (d) Then what happened? Harry makes the overtures to make up with Hermione, but then... Crookshanksgate occurs. And *that* conflict is between *Ron* and *Hermione.* Harry just goes along for the ride. True enough that he doesn't want to risk alienating Ron in order to make it up with Hermione by himself. But, he is 13 & would naturally prefer male companionship at that point. Hagrid calls attention to Crookshanksgate ... he tells both boys, but it's clear from his reference to "cats and rats" that he is really directing his comments primarily at Ron. We've not yet seen a true conflict between Harry and Hermione; a conflict where Ron isn't involved. The Firebolt incident really can't count because Ron involved himself in that matter too heavily. I predict that is the next one to occur. We had Ron and Hermione in PoA; Ron and Harry in GoF. Next up is Harry & Hermione IMO. Then, we'll have a true basis for evaluating whether Harry will miss her terribly too, when the dispute really involves *him* and not primarily Ron. Amy: > > > It's upsetting, and it's out of keeping with various references to > his "two best friends" and the apparent equity between them in most places, but it is the way I heard that line when I first read it and on every reading since. Cindy: > > But . . . but . . . why is it upsetting? I mean, it doesn't bother me at all if Ron is the Best Friend and Hermione is . . . something else. Why is it so important that Hermione rate with Ron on this issue so that the Trio is perfectly in balance? :::boggles:::: Well, I can't recall where Cindy stands on this particular issue, but there are certainly plenty of no-shippers and others who've opined that the friendships within the Trio should remain romance-free, because the overwhelming appeal of the series is tied to The Trio and the inviolable friendships within the Trio. I don't agree with that so much (obviously), nor do I think it's realistic. But, I do think JKR has gone out of her way to demonstrate that Harry has *two best friends.* I'm just ... just ... just *astonished* that anyone would suggest a prioritizing within the Trio. Truly. Flabbergasted. And dismayed. > <<<<> Maybe I have trouble seeing this because I like Ron *so* much more as a character than Hermione. I mean, Ron has *Edge*, or, at least, > I think he does. He's always interesting. His dialogue is much more witty and snappy. He's unpredictable. He might even be Tough (he hasn't wept yet, IIRC). I'd guess that most readers feel that way based on JKR's statement that everyone begs her not to kill Ron, but few fans plead with her to spare Hermione.>>>>> No, on that last bit, Cindy. JKR was *appalled* ... absolutely *appalled* that noone seems to ask her about Hermione. I think it's more that people assume Hermione will make it. I definitely do not think it's because people would prefer to see her bite the dust than Ron. I think most people just figure Ron has "big target" written all over him and Hermione doesn't. You know where I stand on Hermione, of course. And my position on Ron is pretty well-known as well. :--) > > So that's the question: Why work so hard to award Hermione Best > Friend status?>>>>>>> You know one reason it bothers me? It seems sexist to suggest that Hermione is less important in the grand scheme of things. That's not the only reason. I think equity within the Trio is just incredibly important to the overall message of the books myself, but the inherent sexism bothers me. I think back to the following interview statement from JKR in fact: ******************* >From The Times (30 June 2000), interview conducted by Ann Treneman: "She breaks off and then starts to mutter. "It irritates me. It irritates me. What irritates me is that I am constantly, increasingly, being asked 'Can we have a strong female character, please?' Like they are ordering a side order of chips. I am thinking 'Isn't Hermione strong enough for you?' She is the most brilliant of the three and they need her. Harry needs her badly. "But my hero is a boy and at the age he has been girls simply do not figure that much. Increasingly, they do. But, at 11, I think it would be extremely contrived to throw in a couple of feisty, gorgeous, brilliant-at-maths and great-at-fixing-cars girls." ************************* So, my personal take on this is that JKR would be utterly appalled that anyone could interpret her works as saying that Ron matters more than Hermione. I think she has taken abundant care to emphasize that Harry has *two best friends.* JKR loves them all, but don't forget that Hermione is largely based on herself. > Cindy (who has wondered from time to time if Hermione is Tough, but isn't sure she wants to know the answer)>>>>>> I think Hermione is Tough. I think she is *alot* Tougher than Ron, even if she does weep from time to time. Characters who are in touch with their emotions are typically considerably stronger individuals. When push comes to shove, Hermione has the Stuff. And I think we'll see that more & more & more.... Penny From nobradors at hotmail.com Tue May 14 22:48:25 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (Nuria Obradors) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 22:48:25 +0000 Subject: A theory... One variable that would change Harry for the worst/ R/H SHIP/Ron Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38754 >Ethanol said: >I don't think the Hat puts you where you WANT to go, it puts you >where you belong. Ooh...I just had a thought. Perhaps the Hat >saw that Harry himself was slightly torn about his choices? >(Gryffindor/Slytherin, good/evil, Harry doesn't seem to be that >great of a decision maker) Why do people think Slytherin's characteristic is Evil? The fact that all dark wizards come from Slytherin (and if PP wasn't in Slytherin, which we still don't know, the Evil!Slytherin concept would die), doesn't mean that all Slytherins are dark wizards. Wasn't Gandhi ambitious, for instance? It would be as saying, since Haemophilics does only manifests in men, all men are haemophilic. Bigot, IMHO. Barb said: >>>> Harry clearly has a certain amount of ambition. Whether he comes by this naturally (his mum and dad were Head Girl and Boy, after all) or because of Voldemort is debatable. When the hat tells him he could be great in Slytherin, I think it is truly waiting to hear his reaction. If he had said, "Really? How great? Would I eventually be greater than Dumbledore?" the hat would have seen that ambition was a very large part of his personality; Harry did not do that, however, and the hat knew that however much ambition Harry had, it was not overwhelming and he had attributes that required him to be elsewhere.<<<< I agree with you. As someone posted some days ago, maybe the hat saw in Harry several qualities that matched him to more than one house. In fact, in PS it's Harry, not the hat, that mentions Slytherin first. I quote: "Difficult. Very Difficult. Plenty of courage, I see (Gryffindor). not a bad mind, either. There's talent, oh, my goodness, yes (Ravenclaw and/or Hufflepuff?) -*and a nice thirst to prove yourself* (Slytherin!). So where shall I put you?" harry then thinks, "not Slytherin, not Slytherin" Probably the hat was pondering in which of those houses would it put Harry in, and Harry's desire to wanting TO NOT GO to certain house surprised it. Probably it's used to first-years having no clue of which house is like what or wanting TO GO to certain house because dad went there or my friend goes there. I also agree that Harry's reason for not wanting to be in Slytherin has a name that starts with Draco and ends with Malfoy. Now for a new twist of the theory: What if Harry had NOT met Draco at all and the hat had still put him in Slytherin? Would they be friends then? How much of an outcast would Harry -or any other sensitive person- be in Slytherin? Barb: ? I doubt that the hat is able to see the future. It would be the Divination teacher if that were true. (Hey, a ghost teaches one of the classes, why not a hat?) It surely be better than Trelawney, if you ask me... **** David pointed out: >>>>Less sure about this. I think Ron may simply fail to realise that what he believes intellectually about elves, giants etc. contradicts what is in practice his positive and open outlook (as I see it) towards other individuals. He is partially aware of it over Hagrid. If he does relaise it he could move a lot closer to Hermione's position on those issues. (As an aside, where *do* the Weasleys get their prejudices from? I think Molly.)<<<< Oh yes!!! That's what exactly what I was trying to say in my post about Ron's supposed envy (sorry, I don't have the message Number handy) Nuri, who blushed when Penny Linsenmayer found her Prank Theory "fascinating" _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos es la manera ms sencilla de compartir e imprimir sus fotos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From kerelsen at quik.com Tue May 14 23:02:03 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 19:02:03 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Madam Hooch & Flying Lessons References: Message-ID: <001b01c1fb9b$5fbcdcc0$e921b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 38755 ----- Original Message ----- From: "catlady_de_los_angeles" SNIP > Incidentally, that scene in the movie irritated me very much. There > she was, running after Neville being flown away with, looking aghast > when he got stuck on top of a statue and then fell from it... "Madam > Hooch! Are you a witch or aren't you?!" WHY didn't she just pull her > wand and put some levitation charm (Nevillium Leviosa?) on Neville > and steer him down as gently as an autumn leaf drifting on the breeze? Perhaps that's why she's a flying teacher and not a Charms teacher? *smirk* My Driver's Ed teacher certainly couldn't do anything much else than teach driving... It might be a case of she's a witch who is not particularly skilled at Charms... Although, you'd think that with a class that has so much potential for significant injury, they'd have hired a teacher who can do rescues on and off a broom (and why didn't she hop on her own broom for that matter and zoom up to grab him? It certainly took long enough for his robes to tear and let him start falling again!) 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 siskiou at earthlink.net Tue May 14 22:59:48 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 15:59:48 -0700 Subject: Prioritizing Friendship and Toughness, was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: What Harry will miss the most/Liking Hermione In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <108846562350.20020514155948@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38756 Hi, Tuesday, May 14, 2002, 3:31:22 PM, plinsenmayer wrote: > But, I do think JKR has gone out of her way to > demonstrate that Harry has *two best friends.* I'm just ... > just ... just *astonished* that anyone would suggest a prioritizing > within the Trio. Truly. Flabbergasted. And dismayed. The thing is, realistically there *will* be some prioritizing going on in any trio friendship. For all we know, the next conflict could be Harry siding with Hermione and leaving Ron out, because of something Ron does/says to Hermione (not to Harry). So far, Harry has mostly stuck with Ron in these situations, but he may not always do this. I still hope all three will be alive and still friends at the end, but the more theories I read... ;) And regarding toughness plinsenmayer wrote: > I think Hermione is Tough. I think she is *alot* Tougher than Ron, > even if she does weep from time to time. Characters who are in > touch with their emotions are typically considerably stronger > individuals. When push comes to shove, Hermione has the Stuff. And > I think we'll see that more & more & more.... How is she a lot tougher than Ron? I think when it comes down to the crunch they have both proven to be tough, though Hermione tends to lock up, sometimes. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From dicentra at xmission.com Tue May 14 23:15:07 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 23:15:07 -0000 Subject: Tough Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38757 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "plinsenmayer" wrote: > You know one reason it bothers me? It seems sexist to suggest that > Hermione is less important in the grand scheme of things. That's > not the only reason. I think equity within the Trio is just > incredibly important to the overall message of the books myself, but > the inherent sexism bothers me. I'm not sure that Hermione not being Harry's bestest bestest friend is sexist at all, nor does it imply she's less important in the Grand Scheme of Things. We know how important Snape is, for example, but as far as Harry's concerned, Snape can Eat Hot Death. There's no reason for Hermione's importance to be based on Trio dynamics. If Harry prefers Ron, that's because Ron is a guy, and guys like doing guy things together. Going out and playing Quidditch at the Burrow, test-flying the Firebolt, flying the Ford Anglia to school, being thick as a stack of boards about girls. It's entirely possible that this preference will shift as they get older (hormones), but from 11-14, guys prefer hanging out with guys. It's like JKR says: > > "But my hero is a boy and at the age he has been girls simply do not > figure that much. Increasingly, they do. But, at 11, I think it > would be extremely contrived to throw in a couple of feisty, > gorgeous, brilliant-at-maths and great-at-fixing-cars girls." > > > Cindy (who has wondered from time to time if Hermione is Tough, > but isn't sure she wants to know the answer)>>>>>> > Penny: > I think Hermione is Tough. I think she is *a lot* Tougher than Ron, > even if she does weep from time to time. Characters who are in > touch with their emotions are typically considerably stronger > individuals. When push comes to shove, Hermione has the Stuff. And > I think we'll see that more & more & more.... Oh yeah, Hermione is Tough. She's Tough As Nails. In PoA, when her hectic schedule starts to get to her, she doesn't fall into a weeping heap of neurosis, she decks Draco for his smartmouth. She lets Trelawney know exactly what she thinks of her, then packs up and leaves the class without looking back. She has no trouble taking on Rita Skeeter, and she actually WINS! Any time they go on Yet Another Scary Adventure, her objections have to do with legality, not that it's too scary for her. (Did she whimper about going into the Forbidden Forest with Hagrid? I don't think so.) Nope, she doesn't shrink. She was right there with Ron and Harry when they blasted Snape in the Shrieking Shack and takes on Sirius's rescue as if it were another library assignment. Except for that "where will we get wood?" bit in Book 1 (rookie mistake), she's always been Frosty under pressure. That's Tough enough for me. --Dicey, who thinks JKR's right not to bend to the "can't we have a strong woman" demands because she's got plenty already From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue May 14 23:37:57 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 23:37:57 -0000 Subject: Tough Hermione (WAS What Harry will miss the most/Liking Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38758 Sheez! I write a post, click "Sent", and it goes winging off into a black hole somewhere. Well, try again. I apologize if the original of this post turns up, but here it is again. *************************** I asked: > > Cindy (who has wondered from time to time if Hermione is Tough, > but isn't sure she wants to know the answer)>>>>>> Penny replied: > I think Hermione is Tough. I think she is *alot* Tougher than Ron, > even if she does weep from time to time. Characters who are in > touch with their emotions are typically considerably stronger > individuals. When push comes to shove, Hermione has the Stuff. And > I think we'll see that more & more & more.... > Weeelllllll . . . I have a really hard time with the idea that Hermione is Tough, let alone Tougher than Ron. A really hard time. I'd say Hermione is Tougher than Hagrid. But Ron? I mean, look at the Whomping Willow/Shrieking Shack scenes, for instance. Ron has a broken leg, whereas Hermione got thwacked in the head by the Willow. JKR writes the scene with the following excerpts (with my emphasis added for the words that trouble me so): ************* "Oh, help, help," Hermione whispered *frantically*, dancing *uncertainly* on the spot, "please . . . " "Crookshanks!" Hermione whispered *uncertainly*. She now grasped Harry's arm painfully hard. "Where's Ron?" she whispered in a *terrified* voice. "Where does this tunnel come out?" Hermione asked *breathlessly* from behind him. Harry glanced at Hermione, who looked very *frightened* but nodded. Hermione's grip on Harry's arm was so tight he was losing feeling in his fingers. "No, Harry!" Hermione gasped in a *petrified whisper*. Ron, however, spoke to Black. "Harry!" Hermione *whimpered*. ************* OK, that's enough. All this, all of this whimpering and being frightened/terrified/petrified/uncertain in just a few pages. I guess I have a real gripe with Hermione's characterization in those scenes, which are from my favorite part of my favorite book, because she is hardly being written as a capable heroine there. It really starts to get to me, it really does. So why does JKR do these things to Hermione, for cryin' out loud? I have no idea. I'd like Hermione better without these Weak responses, to be honest. And the weeping Hermione does. I could do without all the weeping. I *really* wouldn't miss the weeping. I take the point that people who weep might be in better touch with their emotions. But it sure doesn't make them appear Tough in my eyes. But hey. No one ever promised me a Tough Hermione. And every character can't be Tough -- that would be boring. There's a lot of Toughness among other characters, so maybe JKR felt Hermione has to be written as Not So Tough for variety. But given the dearth of female characters in HP, it sure would be nice if the starring female character didn't comport with the old female stereotype of being shaky under pressure. Cindy (not ruling out the possibility that Hermione will get Tougher and hoping that JKR will pay substantial attention to this issue in the next three books) From lupinesque at yahoo.com Tue May 14 23:41:59 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 23:41:59 -0000 Subject: What Harry will miss the most In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38759 Cindy wrote: > > When I step back and view things from a bit of a distance, I'm > also left with the impression that Ron is The Best Friend for > another reason: the emotional impact on Harry when he has conflict > with Ron vs. Hermione. Penny responded: > We've not yet seen a true conflict between Harry and Hermione; a > conflict where Ron isn't involved. The Firebolt incident really > can't count because Ron involved himself in that matter too > heavily. I predict that is the next one to occur. We had Ron and > Hermione in PoA; Ron and Harry in GoF. Next up is Harry & Hermione > IMO. Then, we'll have a true basis for evaluating whether Harry > will miss her terribly too, when the dispute really involves *him* > and not primarily Ron. I don't see how any of this addresses the issue of emotional impact that Cindy raised. The fact is that for several weeks in PA Harry and Hermione weren't speaking to each other, and he didn't seem to miss her. Some of it was due to her conflict with Ron, but five weeks of it were Harry not talking to her because she got his Firebolt confiscated. (I'm not clear on why he would be less emotionally affected by separation from her just because the cause was a fight between her and Ron anyway.) Now, it might just not have been JKR's particular interest in that book to show the pain of a falling-out between friends, whereas in GF she is very concerned to explore that, but it is quite a contrast. I like to think that Harry's just being an adolescent twerp in PA, but all in all it's rather depressing that he takes separation from one of his best friends so cavalierly. I wrote: > > > It's upsetting, and it's out of keeping with various references > to > his "two best friends" and the apparent equity between them in > most places, but it is the way I heard that line when I first read > it and on every reading since. Cindy wrote: > > But . . . but . . . why is it upsetting? I mean, it doesn't > bother me at all if Ron is the Best Friend and Hermione is . . . > something else. Why is it so important that Hermione rate with Ron > on this issue so that the Trio is perfectly in balance? Well, it isn't as important to me as it is to Penny. Part of it is undoubtedly painful memories from being in unbalanced trios. I also just like to see a strong friendship between an adolescent boy and girl. That would still be there, of course, even if Hermione were *distinctly* secondary. What's particularly nice is seeing a friendship among two boys and a girl in which all three pairs of ties are equally strong--and that's where Penny and I seem to part ways. I realize it's irrational, but hey, I read myself into the stories and there's a certain amount of wish-fulfillment going on. (Guess what--I'm not as wonderful as Lupin either, my Yahoo ID notwithstanding.) > But, I do think JKR has gone out of her way to > demonstrate that Harry has *two best friends.* I'm just ... > just ... just *astonished* that anyone would suggest a prioritizing > within the Trio. You mean like thinking that Ron and Hermione aren't as close as Ron and Harry or Harry and Hermione? ;-) The same wish that makes me want to see Hermione and Ron as equally close to Harry makes me want to see Hermione and Harry as equally close to Ron, and Ron and Harry as equally close to Hermione. I'm rather surprised to hear that you of all people share this wish, Penny. > there are certainly plenty of no-shippers and > others who've opined that the friendships within the Trio should > remain romance-free, because the overwhelming appeal of the series > is tied to The Trio and the inviolable friendships within the Trio. > I don't agree with that so much (obviously), nor do I think it's > realistic. Me either. Romance doesn't have to kill friendship. > JKR was *appalled* ... absolutely > *appalled* that noone seems to ask her about Hermione. I think it's > more that people assume Hermione will make it. I definitely do not > think it's because people would prefer to see her bite the dust than > Ron. I think most people just figure Ron has "big target" written > all over him and Hermione doesn't. I think this is true, and I think JKR knows it too. As far as I can tell, she isn't appalled that no one asks about Hermione; she seems to think, and I agree with her, that it has nothing to do with whom kids *prefer* to die but simply reflects the perception by many kids that the hero's best bud (who is usually a guy) has a big target on his back. Uh, make that his chest. Ron would never turn and run. The relevant quotes I found via the Goat Pen were: ********* from http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/interview.htm (Scholastic, Fall 2000) Any hints you could share about what to expect in future Harry Potter books? The theme running through all seven books is the fight between good and evil, and I'm afraid there will be casualties! Children usually beg me not to kill Ron whenever I tell them this; they seem to think he is most vulnerable, probably because he is the hero's best friend! *********** from http://slj.reviewsnews.com/index.asp?layout=articleArchive&articleId=C A153024&publication=slj (School Library Journal) How have kids responded to your books? Talking to children about the books is actually just about the most enjoyable thing you could possibly do. They are great. What are they most curious about? They are very keen to know whom I'm going to kill. Very, very, very keen. That fascinates me. I think I understand why. They are all really worried about Ron. They've seen so many films where the main character's best friend died [that] I think they have become incredibly wise and know the storyteller's tricks, basically. They know that if Ron died, Harry would have such a grudge, that it would make it very personal. ********** I also think there's an unspoken sense that if there are two boys and a girl and someone has to die, it's going to be one of the boys; it's more symmetrical. It's illogical, and I don't for a moment think that JKR will be governed by it, but when kids ask if Ron's going to die but don't even think to ask about Hermione, I think this is part of the reason. Incidentally, one could read both quotes as yet more suggestions that in her heart of hearts JKR thinks of Ron as Harry's bestest best friend, which makes it hard to see GF 20 as just a case of sloppy editing. But I'll be charitable and assume that she's borrowing kids' language and assumptions, especially because she frequently refers to them as Harry's two best friends in interviews, or refers to one or the other as "Harry's other best friend." Amy Z From blpurdom at yahoo.com Tue May 14 23:54:35 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 23:54:35 -0000 Subject: Ron's Reward (was: Cheese... Ambition.. Ron... Hermione... Harry) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38760 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "heiditandy" wrote: I said: > > If being Head Boy were really his ambition, he'd be working toward that, which he clearly is not. What DO we see him working hard at? Finding out about the Philosopher's Stone, finding out about the Chamber of Secrets, helping Harry prepare for the second and third tasks of the Tournament. Are any of these things likely to get him fame and glory? > > And answered, "No." Heidi: > > I, OTOH, say, "Absolutely!" > > What better way to become Head Boy than to help save the world a few times? Especially if a decision is made to not have Harry as Head Boy, who else are they to choose? Draco? Possibly, but the strongest competition for the role, if Dumbledore is one of the decision-makers, would be Ron. We don't know exactly how Head Boy is chosen, but it seems that while grades are part of it, it's unlikely that they're the whole reason behind the choice. Furthermore, it's a very reasonable way to become famous and get glory - Ron learns that lesson, if he didn't know it already, after the second task, when he gets a kiss from Fleur just for helping Gabrielle out of the water, and where he's a center of attention among his fellow students. Even Padma is more interested in him after that. It's glorious. It's a bit of fame. And if he does something really wonderful, like help Harry, even from the background, in defeating Voldemort, he'll have fame, and possibly fortune as well. What a great thing for Ron and his ego! Me again: It's all very well and good to speculate about what could be in the future, but if we go on what has already occurred, one of the few things Ron's gotten from any of his heroics is a kiss from Fleur. In the first book, Harry is in the hospital wing surrounded by gifts from everyone in the school, because Dumbledore says everyone knows what happened. Do they know Ron sacrificed himself? Do they care? Ron gets points for Gryffindor for that, but we don't hear about him receiving any nice get-well cards when he was in the hospital wing (where he must have spent some time, presumably, after his chess injury--does "chess injury" sound odd to anyone else? ) Although it would be nice to see Ron as Head Boy, he'd probably have to get quite a lot of O.W.L.s in book five or pull off some enormous feat in book six to move past Harry. (Unless JKR pulls a fast one and gives us--Head Boy!Neville.) Plus, of course, he would have to be made a prefect first, and that's also starting to look fairly unlikely. (Although we'd at least know that at the beginning of book five and not the end--less waiting. Unless you count all the waiting for book five. ::sigh::) The Draco/Hermione argument was, of course, something I was waiting for. Based on things JKR has said, I'm afraid I have to say, "Dream on..." But hey, that's what fanfic is for, after all, right? --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From fiatincantatum at attbi.com Tue May 14 23:52:48 2002 From: fiatincantatum at attbi.com (Fiat Incantatum) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 19:52:48 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Madam Hooch & Flying Lessons In-Reply-To: <001b01c1fb9b$5fbcdcc0$e921b0d8@kerelsen> Message-ID: <3CE16B10.5246.C827D3B@localhost> No: HPFGUIDX 38761 On 14 May 2002 at 19:02, Bernadette M. Crumb wrote: > Perhaps that's why she's a flying teacher and not a Charms > teacher? *smirk* My Driver's Ed teacher certainly couldn't do > anything much else than teach driving... It might be a case of > she's a witch who is not particularly skilled at Charms... > Although, you'd think that with a class that has so much > potential for significant injury, they'd have hired a teacher who > can do rescues on and off a broom (and why didn't she hop on her > own broom for that matter and zoom up to grab him? It certainly > took long enough for his robes to tear and let him start falling > again!) I think you are confusing the Celluloid Thing Which Must Not Be Named with the actual canon. What happened on-screen in the theater isn't what happened "for real." For now, we'll set aside the fact that JKR needed to have the complete absense of teachers in order to stage the scene between Potter and Malfoy, and therefor had to manufacture some excuse to get Hooch out of the class. According to my copy of PS/SS, Neville shoots up *before* the whistle, "like a cork out of a bottle" (in other words, very quickly indeed) goes up about 20 feet (maybe a little more) slips sideways off his broom and falls. No zooming around in the air, and *ceratinly* no hanging-by-robes as depicted in the Celluloid Thing. Some budding physicist can tell me how many seconds it takes someone to fall 20 feet, but I'm betting it's not terribly long. I wouldn't bother with the smirk, personally. *Anyone* teaching at Hogwarts would probably be one of the better teachers in their field, given the absolute lack of alternate formal teaching positions in the Wizarding World. You'd think that the competition would probably be fairly stiff. Other than the "jinxed" DADA slot, of course, which seems to be awfully important to the series. Fiat, who has great respect for *anyone* who can tolerate children long enough to teach them anything. -- 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 ganvira1 at hotmail.com Wed May 15 00:48:37 2002 From: ganvira1 at hotmail.com (Terry van Ettinger) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 17:48:37 -0700 Subject: Quidditch Brooms (short) References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38762 Quoting Amanda, I believe: << So no, I think it's fine that the brooms differ. And as for bringing it down to pure skill, well, how well one can work with the tools one has is an important aspect of sharpening skills. >> Exactly. And actually, the faster brooms most likely have their disadvantages as well. I'm guessing that having a faster broom would mean that a player would have to be able to react faster to make direction changes, avoid collisions, etc, whereas slower brooms would allow more room for corrections. So a faster broom might work well for one player, but for another it could be their bane. I am reminded of an example in music. In the tin whistle-playing community, there are many players who swear by cheaper whistles, and avoid the more costly, higher-end varieties, and these people find they play better on the cheaper types. Yet there are others who avoid the cheaper types and go exclusively for the higher end whistles. So more expensive is not always better necessarily. Forgive me if the real-world analogy is going too far off-topic; I just thought it fit in here Regards, Terry From jmmears at comcast.net Wed May 15 02:34:03 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 02:34:03 -0000 Subject: Cheese... Ron.-bashing Hermione... Harry... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38763 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "heiditandy" wrote: > > And Jo wrote: > > I also hope that no inter-trio romantic triangle develops -- what > > a cheap, cheesy development that would be Heidi wrote: > I'm going to reiterate Penny's wonderful (although not completely > complete :) list of "Classics" which contain a very low level of > cheese, right here: > > < triangles. > :::cough::: Little Women, Jane Eyre, Tale of Two Cities, David > Copperfield, > Tom Jones, Emma, A Passage to India, Paul Scott's "Raj Quartet" -- > just to name > a few. Yeah, great literature never uses anything so silly & cliched > as a love triangle. >> You are completely misquoting me here. Of course there have been love triangles in great literature, and I never said there weren't. However, in each of the examples you name, the love triangle is an intergral part of the plot. Harry Potter isn't about romantic relationships between the main characters (no matter how much some listmembers seem to want it to be). It's mainly about the battle between good and evil, with the coming of age of Harry in the WW as the background. Any romantic stuff is there as either comic relief, or PART of Harry's growing up process. To throw in a triangle would IMO detract from the main theme of the story and therefore I still maintain would be cheap and soap-operaish, and JKR is much too good a writer to even *want* to do that (IMO, of course). Heidi wrote: > although I don't agree at all > with Jo when she said: > > > There's > > certainly no reason she couldn't just walk away from Ron when > their > > arguments get heated. She never does, though, and it seems very > > important to her that she stay engaged in the conflict until it > > blows itself out. Heidi wrote: > Clearly, Hermione loves a good debate, and she (like, um, me) > doesn't let debates about things which she cares about, but which > are, to some extent, not personal to her (like the house elves > issue, or some prejudice issues, or even homework) affect her > enthusiasm for debating them. > > However, when Ron's comments get really mean and nasty and personal, > like they did at the Yule Ball, she does walk right away from him. > > "Ron," said Harry quietly, "I haven't got a problem withHermione > coming with Krum-" > But Ron ignored Harry too. > "Why don't you go and find Vicky, he'll be wondering where you are," > said Ron. > "*Don't call him Vicky!" Hermione jumped to her feet and stormed off > across the dance floor, disappearing into the crowd. > Ron watched her go with a mixture of anger and satisfaction on his > face. > ************* > Satisfaction? > That he made her cry? > And he's *satisfied* by that? > What a mean and obnoxious thing to do! What a horrible thing to > feel! How dare he? Oh please. They were fighting, Ron was feeling sulky and jealous, and he lashed out as a result. Don't tell me you've *never* had a rotten little jolt of satisfaction when you've scored a point with someone, even if you've said something unkind. We all have. It's not nice, but it is human. (and she wasn't crying) Heidi again: > I think this scene is very evocative of Hermione's feeling that when > Ron gets too pushy and too mean, she will just walk away. And of > course, even people who are married occasionally push each other too > far - sometimes over stupid things like where in the baby's room > will the bambi rug go, but other times, people really get on each > others' cases about more monumental things. > > And perhaps it's just me, but I can see why someone could deal with > debates about world issues, art, musical tastes (my husband hates > 90% of what I love, and vice versa, for example), or which weekly > newsmagazine to get, but be unable to respond to a personal attack > in any way other than leaving the conversation. (side note - I think > no discussion of the ron&hermione conversation in the common room > afterwards can ignore the fact that the last time they'd talked that > evening, she'd run off crying, but that's for another post.) Heidi, I checked the book. She wasn't crying. Her cheeks got pink and at one point her voice quivered, but there were *no* tears and nowhere does it say she wept, bawled, blubbed or any other synonym for crying. She was royally ticked off (and rightly so) but not crying. Heidi again: > I also think that it's easy to say that Hermione could just end her > friendship with Ron if it stressed her too much, but it's very hard > if not impossible for her to actually do that for various reasons. > First, she would lose a lot of Harry. While I think that their > relationship is balanced at this time, if she suddenly decided that > she wanted to move away from her friendship with Ron, then Harry > might be in the same situation he was in in Book 5, in terms of > having to spend time with them separately (and yes, there's an > indication in Book 3 that off the page, he talks to Hermione to try > and get her to talk with Ron) and that would naturally reduce the > amount of time she could spend with him. There's also an implication > that she's friends with Ginny outside her friendship with Ron & > Harry. If she had a falling out with Ron, would she feel so > confident that her friendship with Ginny would survive it? So you're saying that Hermione continues the friendship with Ron because if she ended it she'd see less of Harry and Ginny? Do you really think she *doesn't* like Ron, but puts up with him to hang around with his best friend and sister? I have a much higher opinion of her than to think she'd be that pathetic, even if it meant that her time with H & G would be reduced as a result. She always gets over the arguments with Ron, why can't we? Heidi continues: > And there's nothing wrong with trying to convince your friends that > something is missing in their lives. I mean, how many of you have > NOT tried to get one friend - one family member - one colleague - to > read the HP books? On OT Chatter here, people are always posting > about new books, evangelizing about movies, saying You Must > See/Try/Do this! That's what a sig file is for - you put links to > your fanfics, or your website, or your FILKs, to encourage people to > look them over. And you do this so your friends will be happier > people, once they've discovered the wonderful thing you enjoy so > much. Well, just speaking for myself but while I'm happy to hear my friends suggestions, when they begin to presume that something is "missing" in my life because I don't do what they want me to, I begin to be offended. Fortunately, I don't have any friends who are this agressive. This is one thing that I do find obnoxious about Hermione sometimes. She always is ready to tell everyone else how to run their lives. Heidi wrote: > > 5. The reasonable solution? > > Draco/Hermione. > > No, don't laugh. Go read Pride & Prejudice instead, remember that > Draco, as we've seen him, is 14, possibly quite bright, occasionally > witty and possibly redeemable. And if... and if... And if he follows > in the footsteps of Fitzwilliam Darcy, he'll be a better match for > Hermione, as Elizabeth Bennett, than anyone else could be. Yes, I > admit it's a big if... but they've both got a bit of growing up to > do, and it could happen. Sorry but, ROFL. As I remember P&P (read several times over the years), Mr. Darcy doesn't ever wish Miss Bennet DEAD. While there were major misunderstandings between these two characters, there are none between Hermione and Malfoy. She LOATHES him, and with very good reason. Unless she "grows up' to be downright stupid, I can't see her suddenly becoming attracted to someone who regards her as being deserving of extermination because of her bloodline. That's just a bridge too far, for me. I'm fascinated by the widely divergent interpretations of canon on this list, although I worry that sometimes fanon is making the water very muddy. Jo S. From heidit at netbox.com Wed May 15 02:54:28 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 22:54:28 -0400 Subject: [[HPforGrownups] Re: Cheese... Ron.-bashing Hermione... Harry...] Message-ID: <20020515025428.238.qmail@uwdvg001.cms.usa.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38764 "serenadust" wrote: > You are completely misquoting me here. Of course there have been > love triangles in great literature, and I never said there weren't. > However, in each of the examples you name, the love triangle is an > intergral part of the plot. Harry Potter isn't about romantic > relationships between the main characters In Les Miz, I don't think it's any more "integral" to the plot of justice and revolution than it would be here. In the Little House books, it's a side note. I could go through each of them one by one and, saving the Austens, could come up with reasons why it's not the central part of the narrative in most of the others. But I fear I would veer off topic were I to do so. > So you're saying that Hermione continues the friendship with Ron > because if she ended it she'd see less of Harry and Ginny? Do you > really think she *doesn't* like Ron, but puts up with him to hang > around with his best friend and sister? I have a much higher > opinion of her than to think she'd be that pathetic, even if it > meant that her time with H & G would be reduced as a result. She > always gets over the arguments with Ron, why can't we? I haven't seen any indication that we're not getting over it, and I don't really understand what you mean in that argument at all. And I do think that she likes Ron, but you have completely misconstrued what I was saying here. Sometimes, there are people in your life that you like for various reasons, but a deep or intense friendship with them is impossible simply because on certain things, you rub each other the wrong way, or you disagree too much. Or a million other reasons. I don't think it's pathetic at all to be part of collective friendships, where each one affects the other - and I think Hermione is smart enough to be aware of that, such that she gets over certain of her arguments with Ron that get personal or the insults he throws. She gets over the one in PS/SS, even though she spends the afternoon/evening crying in the girls' bathroom, but that (I recognize) predates their friendship by quite a few hours. And she gets over other ones as well - and that's perfectly sensible and reasonable to do with people you're friends with. However, it's not necessarily a predeterminor for a fine romance. > Well, just speaking for myself but while I'm happy to hear my > friends suggestions, when they begin to presume that something > is "missing" in my life because I don't do what they want me to, I > begin to be offended. Fortunately, I don't have any friends who are > this agressive. This is one thing that I do find obnoxious about > Hermione sometimes. She always is ready to tell everyone else how > to run their lives. And often, she's right. House elves are enslaved, to a large extent (Dobby is still a house elf, but is no longer enslaved, hence my limitor). Doing your revising is important. Of course, she's wrong too. Lockhart isn't wonderful and Draco isn't the heir of slytherin. But in balance, the things she encourages the boys to do are more often good and positive things, than not. > > > Heidi wrote: > > > > 5. The reasonable solution? > > > > Draco/Hermione. Jo replied: > Sorry but, ROFL. As I remember P&P (read several times over the > years), Mr. Darcy doesn't ever wish Miss Bennet DEAD. While there > were major misunderstandings between these two characters, there are > none between Hermione and Malfoy. She LOATHES him, and with very > good reason. Unless she "grows up' to be downright stupid, I can't > see her suddenly becoming attracted to someone who regards her as > being deserving of extermination because of her bloodline. That's > just > a bridge too far, for me. Right. And the idea that Ron's pet would turn out to be a servant of the wizard who killed Harry's parents would've been a bridge too far in Book 1. Or on page 200 of Book 3, for that matter. > I'm fascinated by the widely divergent interpretations of canon on > this list, although I worry that sometimes fanon is making the water > very muddy. Now I am completely unsure what you're saying. Are you trying to suggest that because in August, 2000, I reread GoF and then the rest of the Trilogy thinking about it from Hermione's perspective and then from Draco's, with a goal in mind of writing a fanfic about a friendship between the two of them, that I have corrupted myself? Or are you saying that because I've created an argument that I have put into "dialogue" form through fanfic, that I am making waters very muddy for myself? Would it be easier to make this argument credible in your eyes if I had only argued it onlist? Because if that's the case, then please do go back to my posts in September, 2000 and read my take on the possibilities between Draco and Hermione. That predates the first chapter of my fanfic by almost a month, and might therefore have more credibility in your eyes. Since I started reading fanfic back in the late summer of 2000, I've always had the belief that putting arguments that you make onlist into fanfic form may help one personally suss out one's arguments with more clarity. Isn't that a good thing? Heidi Tandy Please reply to heidit at netbox.com ____________________________________________________________________ This message was sent from my Palm wireless email account. From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Wed May 15 02:55:43 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 02:55:43 -0000 Subject: Ravenclaw Brooms: Was Re: Quidditch Brooms (short) In-Reply-To: <20020514152247.48501.qmail@web21103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38765 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Ronald Rae Yu wrote: > Doesn't anyone here think it's a bit unfair that > different brooms are used in a Quidditch match, with > the 'richer' players allowed to have the advantage of > using faster brooms? IMO I think it would be more fair > if all players are required to use the same type of > broom. Cleansweeps they may be, at least the game > comes down to pure skill. I wonder how much one may modify one's broom. Flitwick & Co. seem to know how to strip the things down to the chassis, as they did with Harry's Firebolt. They didn't have to call in a factory rep. So, the principles seem well-known. Now. I get the feeling a flying broom is a sort of big, specialized wand. What if you used twigs from a firebush or a rocket? What sort of core would a broom have? Are the Firebolt charms patented? Could you put your own charms on your own broom? Would that void the warranty? What would a Ravenclaw do with a Cleansweep? What would you find in the Raven's broom clawset? Vroom Brooms on the cheap, is my guess. Tex House: Ravenclaw 51-58 Wand: Accasia dowsing fork(8 inches) with eagle wishbone core From jmmears at comcast.net Wed May 15 03:50:33 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 03:50:33 -0000 Subject: [[HPforGrownups] Re: Cheese... Ron.-bashing Hermione... Harry...] In-Reply-To: <20020515025428.238.qmail@uwdvg001.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38766 Whew, too many posts, not enough time to address all of them. I said: > > So you're saying that Hermione continues the friendship with Ron > > because if she ended it she'd see less of Harry and Ginny? Do you > > really think she *doesn't* like Ron, but puts up with him to hang > > around with his best friend and sister? I have a much higher > > opinion of her than to think she'd be that pathetic, even if it > > meant that her time with H & G would be reduced as a result. She > > always gets over the arguments with Ron, why can't we? Heidi writes: > I haven't seen any indication that we're not getting over it, and I don't > really understand what you mean in that argument at all. What I mean is, that by being more outraged by Ron's behavior than Hermione herself is, to me an indication that we're not all "over it" :--). Heidi continued: And I do think that > she likes Ron, but you have completely misconstrued what I was saying here. > Sometimes, there are people in your life that you like for various reasons, > but a deep or intense friendship with them is impossible simply because on > certain things, you rub each other the wrong way, or you disagree too much. Or > a million other reasons. I don't think it's pathetic at all to be part of > collective friendships, where each one affects the other - and I think > Hermione is smart enough to be aware of that, such that she gets over certain > of her arguments with Ron that get personal or the insults he throws. She gets > over the one in PS/SS, even though she spends the afternoon/evening crying in > the girls' bathroom, but that (I recognize) predates their friendship by quite > a few hours. And she gets over other ones as well - and that's perfectly > sensible and reasonable to do with people you're friends with. However, it's > not necessarily a predeterminor for a fine romance. Er, I don't think I've been arguing for any romance, fine or otherwise. That's JKR's job as far as I'm concerned. I have no problem with the notion of collective friendships. My point is that for the whole of Hermione's time at Hogwarts, she has only the 2 boys as friends, and in spite of their bickering, she seems to have a deep and ongoing friendship with Ron, rather than one of convenience. I would, however, love to see her develop a close friendship with another girl, while maintaining her place in the trio. I really think she needs the kind of friendship and understanding she'll never get from Harry or Ron, and that she's overdue in that area. I do get the impression that this is what's developing with Ginny, and I hope it continues for Hermione's sake. Heidi again: But in balance, the things she encourages the boys to do are > more often good and positive things, than not. That's true but it still doesn't entitle her to nag them. I suspect that they like her in spite of this tendency, rather than because of it. > Jo replied: > > Sorry but, ROFL. As I remember P&P (read several times over the > > years), Mr. Darcy doesn't ever wish Miss Bennet DEAD. While there > > were major misunderstandings between these two characters, there are > > none between Hermione and Malfoy. She LOATHES him, and with very > > good reason. Unless she "grows up' to be downright stupid, I can't > > see her suddenly becoming attracted to someone who regards her as > > being deserving of extermination because of her bloodline. That's > > just > > a bridge too far, for me. Heidi: > Right. And the idea that Ron's pet would turn out to be a servant of the > wizard who killed Harry's parents would've been a bridge too far in Book 1. Or > on page 200 of Book 3, for that matter. I think that that comparison doesn't apply here. Scabbers er..personality/character isn't really quite as developed as Hermione and Draco's are, is it? Sure, I'm always really surprised when a pet rat turns out to be an evil wizard , but I can't say that JKR really did a major personality transplant to make this plausable. I wrote: > > I'm fascinated by the widely divergent interpretations of canon on > > this list, although I worry that sometimes fanon is making the water > > very muddy. Heidi: > Now I am completely unsure what you're saying. Are you trying to suggest that > because in August, 2000, I reread GoF and then the rest of the Trilogy > thinking about it from Hermione's perspective and then from Draco's, with a > goal in mind of writing a fanfic about a friendship between the two of them, > that I have corrupted myself? Not at all. I'm fascinated that it would occur to you to do that, because I have found nothing to hang that notion on in my reading of any of the books. Heidi: > Or are you saying that because I've created an argument that I have put into > "dialogue" form through fanfic, that I am making waters very muddy for myself? > Would it be easier to make this argument credible in your eyes if I had only > argued it onlist? Because if that's the case, then please do go back to my > posts in September, 2000 and read my take on the possibilities between Draco > and Hermione. That predates the first chapter of my fanfic by almost a month, > and might therefore have more credibility in your eyes. > > Since I started reading fanfic back in the late summer of 2000, I've always > had the belief that putting arguments that you make onlist into fanfic form > may help one personally suss out one's arguments with more clarity. Isn't that > a good thing? > I don't know. It's an interesting question, but my problem with using fanfic in this way is that we are no longer dealing exclusively with Rowlings characters. I don't read fanfic any more because I found even the best of them unsatisfying (plots contrived, and characters very OC), and I concluded that only reading the "real" stuff was satisfying to me (even if we have to wait a very long time for it). I don't mean to insult your work (or anyone else's), since I don't think I ever got to read it. I think that any time people use fanfic examples to support their opinions of canon, they are mixing apples and oranges. They are taking characters that share the same names as JKR's, making them do and say things that JKR has never had them do, and then extrapolating arguments from this new, artificial construct. Am I the only one bothered by this? Jo S., not intending to step on toes, but fearing she has anyway > > ____________________________________________________________________ > This message was sent from my Palm wireless email account. From pennylin at swbell.net Wed May 15 04:00:31 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 23:00:31 -0500 Subject: Fights within the Trio; Equality (Trio); Sexism; Tough Hermione; Love Triangles; Ambition References: Message-ID: <002a01c1fbc5$0ed9fa20$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38767 Hi -- Am going to try & combine some here (and hope I remember to change the subject heading to reflect what I've done) -- EMOTIONAL IMPACT OF FIGHT WITH HERMIONE VS. FIGHT WITH RON -- Okay, I'll concede that he doesn't seem as bothered by being on the outs with Hermione & having Ron as a friend as he is when he's not speaking to Ron but has Hermione as a friend. OTOH, I note that in POA, *both* Ron and Harry were not friends with Hermione. They were a united front. As the R/H shippers have noted time & time again, supposedly Hermione was attempting to intercede between Harry and Ron during their fight during GoF. So, she may not have been 100% available for Harry, leaving Harry *alone* and with time to be utterly miserable. Contrast that with POA, where Harry was without Hermione but he had 100% of Ron's attention. Mind you, I've never been too clear on exactly *when* Hermione was spending time with Ron during the Harry/Ron fight (since she was in class with Harry, eating meals with Harry, in the Library with Harry (much to his misery), etc.). But, if the R/H'ers are right & she was spending some of her time, especially if she was somehow (?) spending equal time with Ron, then Harry was left alone considerably more than he was when he & Ron weren't speaking to Hermione in POA. I also think, though this is a smaller argument, that there *is* a certain amount of adolescent boy at work in the POA fight that might be less present if he were to have a falling-out with Hermione in Book 5 or later. EQUALITY WITHIN THE TRIO -- Amy said: <<>>> :::looks confused::: Did we part ways? I thought we were in agreement on that score. Perhaps I can clarify .... I said:> But, I do think JKR has gone out of her way to > demonstrate that Harry has *two best friends.* I'm just ... > just ... just *astonished* that anyone would suggest a prioritizing > within the Trio. Amy responded: <<<<>>>>>> Well, I do. Definitely. I don't *think* (wracks brain ... yeah, pretty sure I've never said this) that I've ever said anything to the contrary. I do think Ron & Hermione have a genuine friendship (though I do think they bicker an inordinate amount and I would *personally* find this distasteful and tiresome, both in a friendship and in a romance). I do think the ties between Ron & Hermione are just as strong as between Harry & Hermione. Or as between Harry and Ron. And, I like that. I want that to be true. If there are any romance pairings within the Trio, do I have a preference as to which 2 would be best-suited to pair off? Why, yes, I do. But, as for the straight friendship angle, I dislike the idea that there are stronger & weaker ties within the Trio. What I have argued against is the notion that the R/H shippers have put forth now & again that every moment when Harry is by himself, Ron and Hermione are together (engaging in witty repartee!). I just don't think there's sufficient canon evidence to support this. But, I don't think I've ever questioned that R/H have a genuine friendship. Perhaps people have confused my positions on this. SEXISM -- I noted that one of my objections to the idea of prioritizing within the Trio is that it seems sexist to me. It does. I'm not sure I can explain more specifically what I mean .... other than to say that's my gut reaction, be that as it may. I'm exactly the same age as JKR (well, actually she would have graduated a full year ahead of me I believe because of her July birthday & school cut-off dates). But, she grew up in basically the same era as I did, and if things are even remotely similar in the UK, then she no doubt had very close friendships with males while she was an adolescent and a college student. Well, we know she did, because her best chum from high school is the basis for Ron. Thus, I would find it "odd" if her intent was to portray Ron as being the closer friend to Harry. . . since that would "seemingly" be because they're both male, which calls into some question the validity of (or her attitude towards) male-female platonic friendships. IMO. <<<>>>> I'll put on my lawyer hat and say that the *preponderence* of the evidence supports the notion that JKR regards Ron as Harry's "best friend" and Hermione as Harry's "other best friend," and that sometimes she regards Hermione as Harry's "best friend" and Ron as Harry's "other best friend." How's that? TOUGH HERMIONE -- I agree with all of Dicey's evidence on why Hermione is Tough. I might have been rash in asserting that Hermione is "alot tougher" than Ron. But, she is Tough. At least as Tough as Ron. And the weepiness doesn't bother me a bit. In fact, I could do with alot more weeping really, truth be told. I think Harry needs to cry (and not just choke up & wish that Ron wasn't there). LOVE TRIANGLES -- Jo Serenadust said: <<<<<<>>>>> Like Heidi, I can't agree with that assessment, but it'd be OT to go into too much detail. <<<<>>>>>> Has JKR confirmed that any romance will be strictly comic relief? I don't think so. We don't know where the plot is going ... not for certain. Or, at least, *I* don't want to go on record as predicting that....not with JKR's propensity for plot twists. <<<<<<>>>>>>>> I think if JKR has planned it & is writing it in, it'll be done "right." AMBITION & THE WIZARDING WORLD -- I said: >>> I can definitely buy this. I think Ron *has* ambition. He clearly wants recognition & to "stand out" from his brothers. <<< Pippin: <<<<>>> A rather literalist interpretation, don't you think? If they were out of the picture entirely, he couldn't, after all, be the "best" -- he'd be the "only." :--) <<<<<<<>>>>> Enthusiasm, yes. Competence? Eh... his record's really not so great. He's too rash and doesn't think things through with any logic (Hermione may be guilty of oftentimes using too much logic ... but Ron really seems to use none, which is a bit unusual given his chess skills I would think ... though I know next to nothing about chess). Penny (who is sure she didn't respond to everything that occurred today ... but tried hard!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com Wed May 15 12:05:23 2002 From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (ltg3asu) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 12:05:23 -0000 Subject: TBAY (I think....): Possible Parallel, but who knows... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38768 Hi Ya'll, OK, here lately it seems like parallels between HP and so many other literary works have been flying across the board, so I feel obliged to add just one more (although watch it be the one that breaks the Mod's back!). Upon enjoying LotR a second time, a notion crossed my mind when reading the reason the Dark Lord (Sauron) survived. It was because his essence was trapped in the one ring, and he would only truly be gone when the ring was destroyed. Of course, being the avid HP fan that I am, I automatically shifted my thought to the other Dark Lord (Voldemort) for comparison. Had big, bad V stored away his essence in something before dieing at chubby infantile hands? Well, there's no canon for it being an object, but we do know a little bit of himself was left behind, in one Harry Potter. Ok, ok. Should I be implying that LV remained in etherial form because his essence was trapped in li'l HP? Its always been blamed before on his experiments with immortality, but could JKR have been inspired by this bit of Tolkien's work? If this is the case, and I may just be shooting in the wind, what does that mean is in store for our heroic Harry? The ultimate sacrifice upon learning that LV can't die until he does (atop of a rickety bridge over a lake of lava, of course)? There's some more bang for your buck, and a possible (????) new twist on the Stoned!Harry debate. Speaking of Stoned!Harry.... Someone do get that kid some deodorant. His "essence" is wafting all over the bay, and I am trying to picnic! Yours, L. Terrell Gould, III From daughterofthedust at yahoo.com Wed May 15 03:56:55 2002 From: daughterofthedust at yahoo.com (DaughteroftheDust) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 03:56:55 -0000 Subject: Newbie Has to Weigh in on Hermione's Value... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38769 Okay, first off, I gotta say I'm new to this group (if it's based on the club of the same name, than I guess I'm an oldie). I have to say, that I think Hermione is NOT as valued a member of the "Hogwart's Scoobies" as she should be BUT...I think the main reason this is, is because she is a girl (more mature). There were a few times when the boys (mostly Ron) held grudges against her for silly stupid reasons (Krum, Scabbers, etc.), and because of that pride refused to make amends despite her good intentions and mostly right point of view. She always tells them what they need to hear as opposed to what they want to hear, and so therefore, she's distanced herself from being "best friend" and become semi-"mommy". "DaughteroftheDust" From jmmears at comcast.net Wed May 15 13:07:48 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:07:48 -0000 Subject: Tough Hermione (WAS What Harry will miss the most/Liking Hermione) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38770 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > > I asked: > > > > Cindy (who has wondered from time to time if Hermione is Tough, > > but isn't sure she wants to know the answer)>>>>>> > > Penny replied: > > > I think Hermione is Tough. I think she is *alot* Tougher than > Ron, > > even if she does weep from time to time. Characters who are in > > touch with their emotions are typically considerably stronger > > individuals. When push comes to shove, Hermione has the Stuff. > And > > I think we'll see that more & more & more.... > > Cindy responds: > Weeelllllll . . . I have a really hard time with the idea that > Hermione is Tough, let alone Tougher than Ron. A really hard time. > I'd say Hermione is Tougher than Hagrid. But Ron? > > I mean, look at the Whomping Willow/Shrieking Shack scenes, for > instance. Ron has a broken leg, whereas Hermione got thwacked in > the head by the Willow. JKR writes the scene with the following > excerpts (with my emphasis added for the words that trouble me so): > > ************* > > > ************* > > OK, that's enough. > > All this, all of this whimpering and being > frightened/terrified/petrified/uncertain in just a few pages. I > guess I have a real gripe with Hermione's characterization in those > scenes, which are from my favorite part of my favorite book, because > she is hardly being written as a capable heroine there. It really > starts to get to me, it really does. > > So why does JKR do these things to Hermione, for cryin' out loud? I > have no idea. I'd like Hermione better without these Weak > responses, to be honest. Why does Hermione *have* to be a heroine? I think JKR has indicated that she wrote these books to tell a story (Harry's story), and not as a political manifesto. She's a much more believable and likable character as written than she would be as some sort of warrior princess. As Cindy pointed out later in the post, it would be boring if all the characters were "tough". I hope she doesn't compromise Hermione's character by giving her a personality change, any more than I'd like Ron to lose his sarcastic sense of humor. Jo S. who loved the bit in PoA, where Hermione bursts screaming out of the trunk fleeing the McGonagall-boggart From cindysphynx at comcast.net Wed May 15 13:17:23 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 13:17:23 -0000 Subject: Ambition in the Wizarding World (TBAY) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38771 Porphyria wrote: > But Harry doesn't crave fame (he hates it), he doesn't crave >wealth (he's got some, and he's a little ashamed of it), he doesn't >crave power. He doesn't crave honor unless the situation wrenches >it out of him. The only thing I think he > really is ambitious about is Quiddtich. Isn't this interesting? The one thing Harry is ambitious about is Quiddich. But what, exactly, does Harry crave when it comes to Quiddich? It's not the potential to become wealthy playing Quiddich. It's not the fame. No, it seems that Harry's Quiddich ambitions are motivated by a desire for adoration and attention. In GoF, Harry dreams that he flies like Krum, and he dreams the roar of the crowd: Harry saw himself in robes that had his name on the back, and imagined the sensation of hearing a hundred-thousand-strong crowd roar . . . " Later, when Harry imagines himself sneaking his name into the Goblet, he appears plenty ambitious: "he was standing on the grounds, his arms raised in triumph in front of the whole shcool, all of whom were applauding and screaming . . . Cho's face stood out particularly clearly in the blurred crowd, her face glowing with admiration." So Harry is ambitious in this one limited way, I guess. So maybe JKR is saying it is OK to be ambitious to impress strangers or an attractive girl, but not to seek power or wealth? Yuk. Porphyria (on Moody): >One of the things we do know about Moody is > that he was authorized to use the unforgivable curses against the DEs > but avoided it as best as he could. This puts him in the same > category as Dumbledore: someone who is quite capable of using the > Dark Arts but chooses to limit his own power for, evidently, moral > reasons. And I think the text indicates this is something *good* > about Moody. So I'd say that Moody is presented as "good" to us >when > we see him curbing his power and "worrisome," like in the >Pensieve, > when we see him snarling at Karkaroff. Well . . . you're preaching to the converted there. I really do like Moody, snarling and all. Still . . . I'd love for Moody to turn out to be more than the Bad Cop who is Good deep inside. I think I'd much prefer Evil To The Core And Fooling Everyone Moody. I have a feeling that I'm not going to be allowed to vote on that issue. ;-) Porphyria: > I've often wondered whether or not PresentDay!Snape is as >ambitious as you'd expect from a Slytherin. It's hard to tell if >there is some particular *position* he's after. I'm not >sure. He seems committed to being a supporter of the cause that >Dumbledore leads. See, this is where I have my doubts. Snape is supposed to be an ambitious Slytherin. Yet he is supposed to be perfectly happy to stroll around a dungeon telling kids when to add the rat spleen. It just doesn't add up. That's why I'm keeping my eye on Snape. He might well be tolerating his less-than-lofty position at Hogwarts for other reasons. Evil reasons. Like he really *is* still a spy for Voldemort. Why, by the way, are so few people willing to entertain the possibility that Snape's conversion wasn't true? I mean, maybe the reason he was able to return to Hogwarts at the end of GoF was because Voldemort allowed him to. Maybe Snape didn't prevent the Dementor from sucking out Crouch Jr.'s soul because Crouch Jr. was going to finger Snape as a DE who walked free. Oh, I am keeping my eye on Snape, I certainly am. Porphyria (on Snape): > I guess your best bet would be to argue that he acts the most > ambitious when it comes to the touchy subject (for him) of > recognition. Oh yes. Forgive me. We're supposed to be talking about ambition. I lost my head for a minute there. ;-) > On the other hand, there is Teenage!Snape and that could well be a > different matter. I believe you have suggested in the past that > perhaps Snape did join the DE s because he was ambitious. And this > certainly makes sense in a lot of ways -- isn't this what Slyths >are characteristically tempted to do? Oh goodness. What's this? A potential convert to Prince of Lies? Well, well. It's been a while since anyone signed on to that theory, but enrollment is still open. It's *never* too late to join Prince of Lies. This is such a pleasant surprise, Porphyria! I . . . I . . . wasn't expecting you at all. Um, let me see. I'm all out of brandy, the beer is warm and the champagne is flat, but . . . I seem to have a packet of Kool-Aid and a bit of water . . . I hope you like artificial Cherry flavoring! Porphyria: >And Snape seems firmly convinced of > his own talents, and would probably appreciate an atmosphere in >which > they could be appreciated and rewarded. Poor Snape does appreciate >a > pat on the head. So if Voldemort had any smarts at all he would >have > capitalized on this. Yes, yes. This is it. Exactly, Porphyria! Because of Snape's festering ambitions, Snape was just clay in Voldemort's Evil hands. Such a waste, don't you think? Porphyria: > But the whole point of Snape's character is redemption, isn't it? > (OK, not the whole point, but a big, honking point.) So maybe, since > JKR does seem ambivalent at best about the lure of ambition, maybe we > can see some inkling of what Snape's redemption involved. Yes, but what about the idea of *failed* redemption? Lots of characters have had second chances (Hagrid, Snape, Lupin, Sirius, Avery), but I don't think we've seen any character *squander* a second chance. Maybe Snape will be the character who reverts back to his Evil Old Ways. And having a character botch one of Dumbledore's second chances would be so *Bangy*! I mean, the closest we've come so far is Crouch Jr., who was given a second chance by his father. And Crouch Jr. generate a huge Bang in GoF, right? Having Snape dutifully spy for Dumbledore for the next three books is kinda dull. I'm waiting for Snape, in a moment of blind ambition, to make his move, to throw it all away, to betray Dumbledore when Dumbledore least expects it . . . Although I'm willing to be flexible about whether the betrayal has anything to do with catwalks. ;-) Porphyria: >Maybe the reason Dumbledore > trusts him so much is because he gave up on some extraordinarily > powerful, high-ranking opportunity that LV offered him -- pace >Cindy, who has in the past suggested the he left the DE s because >LV didn't appreciate him at all. ;-) Oh, and won't Dumbledore be slack-jawed when it turns out that Snape didn't turn down Voldemort's opportunity. When it turns out that Snape used Dumbledore as a stepping stone up the DE Corporate Ladder. I'm thinking that will be a serious Non-Twinkle moment for Albus. ;-) Cindy From inviziblegirl at hotmail.com Wed May 15 13:38:05 2002 From: inviziblegirl at hotmail.com (Amber ?) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 09:38:05 -0400 Subject: Harry's "Best" Friend Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38772 Hey there, coming out of lurk-mode because something caught my attention... >From: "plinsenmayer" >Cindy: > > > > But . . . but . . . why is it upsetting? I mean, it doesn't > > bother me at all if Ron is the Best Friend and Hermione is . . . > > something else. Why is it so important that Hermione rate with Ron > > on this issue so that the Trio is perfectly in balance? > >:::boggles:::: Well, I can't recall where Cindy stands on this >particular issue, but there are certainly plenty of no-shippers and >others who've opined that the friendships within the Trio should >remain romance-free, because the overwhelming appeal of the series >is tied to The Trio and the inviolable friendships within the Trio. >I don't agree with that so much (obviously), nor do I think it's >realistic. But, I do think JKR has gone out of her way to >demonstrate that Harry has *two best friends.* *shrug* I'm a non-shipper and I truly think that at this stage in the game, Ron matters more to Harry than Hermione. What's more, I like Hermione more than Ron and it doesn't bother me that Ron matters more. It's the way life is. You can't love your friends equally or at the exact same amounts. Or at least, I don't believe you can't. I have friends who I love to varying degrees. There are some that I prefer to spend my time with more than the others. It's shocking and maybe disgust some people but it's the utter truth. The people who you empathize with best, have most in common, you want to spend the most time with. And right now, for Harry, it's Ron in my opinion. That's to say that this won't change. Life is flux, it's bound to change at some point. And that doesn't bother me either. It always changes as people drift in and out. In the next book, we might see strong evidence that Harry might empathize with Hermione more. Fine, bravo! "Best Friend", in my opinion, means only one person. I have several friends but only one best friend. Why? Because they are BEST. I can't award Friend A and Friend B both that status because if I were to get down to truth, the honest truth, I would love one of them more. Does this make me a bad person? Well, I guess that depends on your perspective. I don't think it does. It simply makes me human. >I think Hermione is Tough. I think she is *alot* Tougher than Ron, >even if she does weep from time to time. Characters who are in >touch with their emotions are typically considerably stronger >individuals. When push comes to shove, Hermione has the Stuff. And >I think we'll see that more & more & more.... Surely, Hermione has the stuff. She's a powerhouse of will. I love her to death because I wish *I* were as strong in character as she is. The fact that she's willing to stand against her friends for what she believes is right (irregardless of whether she's correct in what's right *grin*) is truly fantastic. ~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 _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From cindysphynx at comcast.net Wed May 15 14:38:05 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 14:38:05 -0000 Subject: TBAY (I think....): Possible Parallel, but who knows... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38773 L. Terrell Gould, > Upon enjoying LotR a second time, a notion crossed my mind when > reading the reason the Dark Lord (Sauron) survived. It was because his > essence was trapped in the one ring, and he would only truly be gone > when the ring was destroyed. Of course, being the avid HP fan that I > am, I automatically shifted my thought to the other Dark Lord > (Voldemort) for comparison. Had big, bad V stored away his essence in > something before dieing at chubby infantile hands? Well, there's no > canon for it being an object, but we do know a little bit of himself > was left behind, in one Harry Potter. > Ok, ok. Should I be implying that LV remained in etherial form > because his essence was trapped in li'l HP? Its always been blamed > before on his experiments with immortality, but could JKR have been > inspired by this bit of Tolkien's work? Sorry I had to snip so much of Terrell's interesting analysis, but it's so intriguing that there's not much to cut. Boy, I'd really like this idea to work. I'm a little confused though. Is the idea that the backfired AK curse captured the essence of Voldemort and caused it to be stored in some part of Harry -- like Harry's blood, to pick one random possibility? So that when Voldemort obtains Harry's blood, he, er, gets his groove back? Yeah, there's some canon for this, I think: "I have my reasons for using the boy, as I have already explained to you, and I will use no other." So maybe Voldemort could use any enemy for the Rebirthing Solution, but using Harry's blood turns Voldemort into Groovy Voldemort? Or is the idea that Voldemort's attack on Harry was an attempt to retrieve something that was already stored inside Harry? If so, what, and how did it get there? Cindy (wondering what if this theory means that Dumbledore's gleam of triumph was something other than triumph) From ladjables at yahoo.com Wed May 15 15:22:56 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 08:22:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Exorcizing the Prank Message-ID: <20020515152256.98231.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38774 Hi all, It seems to me that the Prank haunts the list, rattling its chains around like Marley. I was wondering if I could help lay it to rest, until the Grand High Medium Jo does the job properly, that is. A common complaint seems to be that Sirius thought nothing of Remus when he set about tricking Snape. Well, what if he WAS thinking of Remus? Apart from the fact that canon offers little on the prank, since Sirius and Remus are not the most forthcoming of characters, and Snape has a tendency to spew rather than actually impart information, we do know Sirius hated Snape and vice versa. We know Snape was prowling around, trying to find a way to get the Marauders in trouble. And we know Remus had a very big secret that had to be protected. This leads me to extrapolate that when Sirius told Snape about Lupin's hideout, he only meant to scare Snape to death, without actually considering that Remus would zealously oblige him in that endeavour. Sirius may have believed the sight of the werewolf would frighten Snape into silence, and therefore solve all their problems. If Snape threatened to tell, Sirius would just say, "try it,and we'll sic the werewolf on you." I like this theory because it shows Sirius was out to get Snape as well as try to protect a friend. The theory is also full of holes, in this case a plus. Hotheaded Sirius wanted to punish Snape and save Remus, but did not think through his prank carefully. He used the kind of short-term logic that quickly withered under the glare of hindsight. Snape could have been killed, Remus could have been hauled away to suffer God know what. Sirius made a terrible mistake and almost destroyed his friend. Tragically, this was a harbinger of things to come. So, can prank-haters and prank apologists hold hands now and skip into the sunset together? Or will those chains keep clanking? I'd like to hear your thoughts on the matter. Of course, if a prank war ensues, I plead the Trelawney defense. Ama __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From sedate_fangirl at hotmail.com Wed May 15 14:35:55 2002 From: sedate_fangirl at hotmail.com (Sarah Tilson) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 10:35:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY (I think....): Possible Parallel, but who knows... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38775 L. Terrell Gould, III said: > Upon enjoying LotR a second time, a notion crossed my mind when >reading the reason the Dark Lord (Sauron) survived. It was because his >essence was trapped in the one ring, and he would only truly be gone >when the ring was destroyed. Of course, being the avid HP fan that I >am, I automatically shifted my thought to the other Dark Lord >(Voldemort) for comparison. Had big, bad V stored away his essence in >something before dieing at chubby infantile hands? Well, there's no >canon for it being an object, but we do know a little bit of himself >was left behind, in one Harry Potter. > Ok, ok. Should I be implying that LV remained in etherial form >because his essence was trapped in li'l HP? Its always been blamed >before on his experiments with immortality, but could JKR have been >inspired by this bit of Tolkien's work? Newbie joining the discussion here...A friend of mine suggested exactly this -- that Voldemort had somehow channeled his powers, accidentally or not, into Baby Harry. The Canon seems to suggest that Harry shares a connection with ol' Lord of Darkness, at the very least. Personally, I'm fond of the idea that Voldemort put his essence into Harry and is now unable to get it back, but if Voldemort did like this the question remains: Why Harry, son of two famous Good wizards? Did the irony appeal to him? Was the spell supposed to corrupt him, but Lily's sacrifice saved him? Was there some power or special attribute that only Harry possessed? And does this mean we're going to have Harry tossed *off* that catwalk into the lava at the end? ^_^ Ah, so many possibilities. @_@ Sarah, who must now rush off to the lithograph press _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Wed May 15 17:36:19 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 18:36:19 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Exorcizing the Prank References: <20020515152256.98231.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007701c1fc37$06e11660$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 38776 ----- Original Message ----- From: "ladjables" To: Sent: Wednesday, May 15, 2002 4:22 PM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Exorcizing the Prank > Hi all, > It seems to me that the Prank haunts the list, > rattling its chains around like Marley. I was > wondering if I could help lay it to rest, until the > Grand High Medium Jo does the job properly, that is. > > A common complaint seems to be that Sirius thought > nothing of SNIP, "try it,and we'll sic the > werewolf on you." > > > So, can prank-haters and prank apologists hold hands > now and skip into the sunset together? Or will those > chains keep clanking? I'd like to hear your thoughts > on the matter. Of course, if a prank war ensues, I > plead the Trelawney defense. > Ama > Oh I'm sure Grey Wolf will think of something to keep it going * G * Otherwise quite a nice argument! Felicia Off to rid her computer of the virus the HP DVD software has given it......... From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed May 15 18:21:31 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 18:21:31 -0000 Subject: Exorcizing the Prank In-Reply-To: <20020515152256.98231.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38778 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., ladjables wrote: > Hi all, > It seems to me that the Prank haunts the list, > rattling its chains around like Marley. I was > wondering if I could help lay it to rest, until the > Grand High Medium Jo does the job properly, that is. > > A common complaint seems to be that Sirius thought > nothing of Remus when he set about tricking Snape. > Well, what if he WAS thinking of Remus? [snipped some figuration about only scaring Snape] I think that he *was* thinking of Remus - but not that Sirius ever meant to do *anything* to Snape - not even scaring him. And Snape probably was more being curious than trying to get a Gryffindor expelled or into trouble. But the night changed a lot. To me - it's not a prank, but a misunderstanding. First a bit of background: We know *something* about what Sirius, James, Snape and Lupin did that night. The canon facts are that 1) Lupin went to Shrieking Shack to transform 2) Sirius told Snape how to get past the whomping willow 3) Snape went to the Shrieking Shack 4) James went after Snape and saved him from transformed Lupin. 5) James, Sirius and Peter used to accompany Lupin in their animagi forms. 6) Sirius was 16 when it happened (and the others, too). 7) It took them 3 years to learn to master animagi 8) McGonagall introduces animagi to 3rd years. They *could* have been in 5th year or 6th when the event took place - Sirius could have turned 16 during his 5th year. (6) They begun to learn animagi during their 3rd year (8) and were finished at the end of their 6th year (7). So - it's likely they weren't animagi *yet* when the event took place, but only working on it, almost there, but not quite. However, they could have done something to help their friend as soon as they found out. James lent the invisibility cloak for Lupin to be able to get into the tunnel unnoticed easier. (Madam Pomfrey may have shrunk him or used an invisibility spell before that and *taken* him there). Second, they escort Lupin who gets to go by himself after getting invisibility cloak. Snape gets extremely curious what they mean with comments like "We've nearly done it" flying around troughout the year, with Lupin (modestly) responding they really shouldn't do it just for him, but being *very* pleased none the less. Just to keep things being too obvious, the three take turns. Peter went with Lupin that night. Him being more scared than the others, he went earlier than needed. Snape noticed and learned of the secret passage from Peter. He goes in, wondering why Lupin is leaving school grounds, but can't get past the whomping willow so he goes back. Meanwhile, Peter has told Sirius that Snape knows about the passage (James was with Lily at the time). Sirius draws erratic conclusion that Snape *also* knows about the Whomping Willow. Peter tells James later and *James* knows that Snape knew nothing about the Willow. Meanwhile, Snape talks to Sirius in a way that makes Sirius doubt that Snape *knows* Remus' secret, and is suggesting that Sirius doesn't know. Sirius needs to make sure *for* Remus, because if Snape knows or doubts... but he must do it without giving out the secret. So, he asks one question: "Why don't you put a stick trough and... go past the Whomping Willow now?" To Sirius, this is an honest, general question, with 'you' in passive. If Snape didn't know about Remus' being a werewolf, Sirius expected him to say 'because it's out of bounds'. Snape, however, interprets the 'you' differently and goes to do just that. Sirius is baffled and goes to tell James - who goes after Snape, telling Sirius and Peter to go inform Dumbledore - just in case. They do so and Dumbledore heads to the corridor, meeting James and Snape - and finds out how James had rescued Snape. James is awarded for extraordinary courage for his action. Snape gets a talk with Dumbledore, who a) scolds him for being out of bounds and b) gets him to keep Lupin's secret. Snape would reply to a) with "Potter was also out of bounds". To which AD would say that: "Only to save your life, Mr. Snape. That is legitimate reason or would you have rather died?". (Which explains why Snape says James broke rules and got away with it) Snape then complained about Sirius' prompting him to go... (hopeless effort to get a Gryffindor into trouble, too). "He was merely asking a question. He did not force you to break the rules"-- or some such would have been the reply. (thus the 'Black got away with nothing'-comment. Nothing because he wasn't really guilty of anything). -- Finwitch From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Wed May 15 19:48:52 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 15:48:52 EDT Subject: Should Saw It? Message-ID: <11c.112d7466.2a1415a4@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38779 When allwas revealed in the end of GoF, everyone that I know who's read the story seemed competely taken by surprise that Moody was really Crouch...however, thee are alotta points that seemed to stick out, and I'm rather surprised that it took so long for anyone to catch on - first of all, though however amusing, what Crouch/Moody did to Draco was completely uncalled for, and was really a horrible to thing to - granted Draco was attempting to curse Harry at the time, but what real teacher would actually turn a student into a ferret and BOUNCE them on the hard stone floors? Yeesh! McGonagall should've realized then that although Moody was a tad (alright, a but more than a tad) paranoid, and he acted first and thought later, but honestly, he was BOUNCING a student! He was causing a student to repeatedly slam into a stone floor! As soon as I read that, i knew that something was up. Also, Crouch/Moody knew exactly what had happened with the Goblet...true, some people may say that the other teachers just figured he was taking an educated guess, and thinking along the lines of the "bad guys" but he actually SAID the EXACT thing that he had done in order to trick the Goblet! Anyone have any thoughts? Or notice anything amiss? *Chelsea* From Edblanning at aol.com Wed May 15 20:47:37 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 16:47:37 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Exorcizing the Prank Message-ID: <139.e494163.2a142369@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38780 Finwitch: > They *could* have been in 5th year or 6th when the event took place - > Sirius could have turned 16 during his 5th year. (6) > They begun to learn animagi during their 3rd year (8) > and were finished at the end of their 6th year (7). > > So - it's likely they weren't animagi *yet* when the event took > place, but only working on it, almost there, but not quite. However, > they could have done something to help their friend as soon as they > found out. Canon actually states that they took less than ('the best part of') three years to become animagi. Lupin says they achieved it in Fifth year. I think the clear implication, assuming that Lupin tells his story chronologically, is that they were, by the time of the Prank, although I'm not sure how relevant it is, really. > > James lent the invisibility cloak for Lupin to be able to get into > the tunnel unnoticed easier. (Madam Pomfrey may have shrunk him or > used an invisibility spell before that and *taken* him there). An intriguing idea, but unfortunately contradicted by canon. Lupin says that Snape *saw* Madam Pomfrey leading him to the willow . The text is slightly ambiguous, it *could* have been on an earlier occasion, although I think the implication is that it was on the night of the Prank. James lending the invisibility cloak to Remus implies that Madam Pomfrey knows that James, at least, knows Remus' secret and we have no canon evidence of this. It also contradicts the canon evidence that Madam Pomfrey visibly led Remus to the willow (and there is no indication that she shrank him or anything else - in fact, this could have been quite useful, couldn't it? A shrunken Remus could presumably have been contained quite easily!). Use of the invisibility cloak is also contradicted by Lupin's statement that the others used to sneak out of the castle under the invisibility cloak when they went to visit him. Sorry, this all sounds terribly negative, but I do appreciate your brave attempt to turn the Prank into a misunderstanding! :-) Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From huntleyl at mssm.org Wed May 15 21:14:20 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:14:20 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ambition in the Wizarding World (TBAY) References: Message-ID: <004801c1fc55$7e366bc0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 38781 Porphyria wrote: > But Harry doesn't crave fame (he hates it), he doesn't crave >wealth (he's got some, and he's a little ashamed of it), he doesn't >crave power. He doesn't crave honor unless the situation wrenches >it out of him. The only thing I think he > really is ambitious about is Quidditch. ...And Cindy replied: >Isn't this interesting? The one thing Harry is ambitious about is >Quidditch. But what, exactly, does Harry crave when it comes to >Quidditch? It's not the potential to become wealthy playing >Quidditch. It's not the fame. >No, it seems that Harry's Quiddich ambitions are motivated by a >desire for adoration and attention. >So Harry is ambitious in this one limited way, I guess. So maybe >JKR is saying it is OK to be ambitious to impress strangers or an >attractive girl, but not to seek power or wealth? >Yuk. Okay. With you on the part about Harry being "ambitious" for adoration and attention. However, I feel this is more of a reflection on the way Harry grew up than a social commentary on JKR's part. I mean, adoration and [positive] attention -- these are the things he *never* got Dursleys. Ever. So, naturally, they are exactly what he seeks. Poor kid just wants to be loved. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed May 15 21:33:08 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 21:33:08 -0000 Subject: Should Saw It? In-Reply-To: <11c.112d7466.2a1415a4@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38782 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Chelsea2162 at a... wrote: > When allwas revealed in the end of GoF, everyone that I know who's > read the story seemed competely taken by surprise that Moody was > really Crouch...however, thee are alotta points that seemed to stick > out, and I'm rather surprised that it took so long for anyone to > catch on - first of all,though however amusing, what Crouch/Moody did > to Draco was completely uncalled for, and was really a horrible to > thing to - granted Draco was attempting to curse Harry at the time, > but what real teacher would actually turn a student into a ferret and > BOUNCE them on the hard stone floors? Yeesh! McGonagall should've > realized then that although Moody was a tad (alright, a but more than > a tad) paranoid, and he acted first and thought later, but honestly, > he was BOUNCING a student! He was causing a student to repeatedly > slam into a stone floor! As soon as I read that, i knew that > something was up. Also, Crouch/Moody knew exactly what had happened > with the Goblet...true, some people may say that the other teachers > just figured he was taking an educated guess, and thinking along the > lines of the "bad guys" but he actually SAID the EXACT thing that he > had done in order to trick the Goblet! Anyone have any thoughts? Or > notice anything amiss? > > *Chelsea* It's true that, in retrospect, many things that you take for granted suddenly take a new dimmension and start to stick out. Your question, however, is whether those things were self-evident at the beggining. Well, maybe for you it was, but for most of the readers (and specially me), those things looked so very in-character that, if Real!Moody ever appeared, I'd hope he'd do the self-same things. You mention the ferret transformation as something no teacher would do. True enough, but remember: Moody is not a teacher. He's the equivalent to a marine of the USA or a special forces agent who's overcome everything he has faced with a combination of cunning, brute strength, ability and God knows what else. He is presented as a genius and, as many geniuses, on the brink of insanity. He's the best the MoM could get in the Reign of Terror, and he was extremelly efficient (filled half of Azkaban on his own). Since he was facing people who could kill him by muttering two words (AK), he couldn't have had time to think: he had to act, *always*, in the blink of an eye. What's more, after 40+ years of fighting DEs, he must know all tricks of the trade, all the possible ways of cursing, conjuring, etc, and al the ways of bending the rules of reality. Thus, when he "speculates" over how someone did something (especially if "someone" is a Dark Wizard), he's probably more often than not correct. There is no more obvious example of Darwin's natural selection rules than wars: people who survive tend to continue to survive because they get to know what they face and how to evade death. Moody is a survivor, a veteran, at the top with the very best and probably second to none in his trade: wars. In conclusion, everything False!Moody does in GoF is, as I see it, reflection of what Real!Moody would have done. Maybe not with all the double-edged comments, but definetely with the same ruthless determination and efficiency. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who's having a horrible week and cannot follow the list, so he's just reading posts with interesting titles. From porphyria at mindspring.com Wed May 15 22:18:01 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 22:18:01 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Ambition in the WW and Untrustworthy Characters In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38783 Cindysphynx remarked, in part: > The one thing Harry is ambitious about is > Quiddich. <...> > No, it seems that Harry's Quiddich ambitions are motivated by a > desire for adoration and attention. <...> So maybe > JKR is saying it is OK to be ambitious to impress strangers or an > attractive girl, but not to seek power or wealth? > Yuk. Ha! But I guess she sees a teen crush as far more forgivable than greed for filthy lucre. Harry really just wants love... Erm, as I compose this, Laura has already said the same thing: > Poor kid just wants to be loved. Well, I was being sardonic about it. :-P But I think also there is a level at which Harry just really enjoys Quidditch and the feel of flying. There is something a little bit guileless about his love of the game when it's not about trouncing the Slytherin. Is this also a UK cultural thing? Is pleasure and ambition in playing sports seen as less untrustworthy than a desire to make money or climb the social ladder? Cindy again, on whether Moody is problematic or not: > I'd love for Moody to > turn out to be more than the Bad Cop who is Good deep inside. I > think I'd much prefer Evil To The Core And Fooling Everyone Moody. > I have a feeling that I'm not going to be allowed to vote on that > issue. ;-) Oh, I'll second you there. We need to agree on something, since...well, we don't agree on everything. Of Snape, I remark: > >He seems committed to being a supporter of the cause that > >Dumbledore leads. And Cindy replies: > See, this is where I have my doubts. Snape is supposed to be an > ambitious Slytherin. Yet he is supposed to be perfectly happy to > stroll around a dungeon telling kids when to add the rat spleen. It > just doesn't add up. I've often wondered whether or not Snape would be teaching small children if he really had an unrestricted choice. It's not clear he's perfectly happy doing it. :-) I figure there are two possibilities. One is that there might be something extremely prestigious about teaching at Hogwarts; perhaps it marks you out as the best in your field. I suspect it does carry more weight than a grammar school teacher would in our culture, especially since there is no university level beyond. This is the only academia they have. The other possibility is that Snape must stay at Hogwarts, or chooses to stay for reasons other than teaching. Some of these we've discussed before: maybe he's there because it's the safest place for him to be shielded from angry ex-DE s (although it's not clear that he needs this), maybe he's there because Dumbledore needs to rely on his help at a moment's notice, maybe he's there because Dumbledore decided to take him under his wing at some point after he recanted and wants to provide him with emotional support and a stable environment. I personally wouldn't be surprised to find out that he'd rather be heading up some experimental potions department at the MoM if only this Voldemort business could have been sorted out permanently. But you see Cindy, he's *loyal,* he's *reformed.* Cindy doesn't believe this: > That's why I'm keeping my eye on Snape. He might well be tolerating > his less-than-lofty position at Hogwarts for other reasons. Evil > reasons. Like he really *is* still a spy for Voldemort. I was sort of hoping that Snape would not continue to be a red herring in future books because his potential for that had finally been exhausted. Apparently this is not the case, and perhaps Cindy's Snape is Ever So Evil stance points to many future arguments among the Trio as to whose side he's really on. If Snape has been biding his time for these 13 years waiting for LV's triumphant return then he possesses far more patience than he has ever demonstrated in canon. > Why, by the way, are so few people willing to entertain the > possibility that Snape's conversion wasn't true? Without going off on too much of a tangent here, I'd say the short answer (for me) is that Snape's bad qualities offer far more of a point of identification than Voldemort's. With nearly every nasty thing Snape has ever done I've at least understood how he felt, whereas I've never wanted immortality or world domination. So if Snape turns out to be Ever So Evil then that makes me Ever So Evil too. And I just never budgeted for that. > I mean, maybe the > reason he was able to return to Hogwarts at the end of GoF was > because Voldemort allowed him to. Maybe Snape didn't prevent the > Dementor from sucking out Crouch Jr.'s soul because Crouch Jr. was > going to finger Snape as a DE who walked free. But poor Snape wasn't worried about the Dementor because he trusted McGonagall, whose express job it was to guard Crouch Jr. So was *she* the one who wanted young Barty to permanently keep still about some vital fact? Is McGonagall Ever so Evil? Is that why she goes around wearing Slytherin colors all the time, even though Snape himself rarely bothers? Is that why she didn't warn Dumbledore in PS/SS after Harry accosted her, convinced the Stone was in jeopardy? I bet she finagled to buy him that Firebolt to get him on the Quidditch team early so that Quirrell would have his shot at jinxing him off of it. Yeah, she was in league with Q-man all along! And she really wants Trelawney discredited, doesn't she? Maybe it's to keep people from believing her *next* true prediction! Oh, yeah, I'm onto her. She's the one who can turn into a cat and creep around the school late at night. Spying on Harry, no doubt. Wait -- didn't she go to school with Tom Riddle? Maybe they were lovers! Hang on: she's tall and thin and has black hair, just like Tom -- maybe they're cousins! Or for those of you who like it juicy, maybe they were both. >:-D See Cindy, I've just solved your problem about who LV's *real* loyal servant at Hogwarts is. And it's not my poor, maligned Snape. You have to admit Evil!McGonagall would be Ever So Bangy. > Oh, I am keeping my eye on Snape, I certainly am. I am as well, but for far more enjoyable reasons than Cindy. > Oh yes. Forgive me. We're supposed to be talking about ambition. > I lost my head for a minute there. ;-) Yeah, me too. How embarrassing. I suggested that Snape probably joined the DEs because he was ruthlessly ambitious back in those days. Cindy gasped: > Oh goodness. What's this? A potential convert to Prince of Lies? > Well, well. It's been a while since anyone signed on to that > theory, but enrollment is still open. It's *never* too late to join > Prince of Lies. > This is such a pleasant surprise, Porphyria! I . . . I . . . wasn't > expecting you at all. Um, let me see. I'm all out of brandy, the > beer is warm and the champagne is flat, but . . . I seem to have a > packet of Kool-Aid and a bit of water . . . I hope you like > artificial Cherry flavoring! Cindy, you know I will only drink half this cup. Cindy: > Because of Snape's > festering ambitions, Snape was just clay in Voldemort's Evil hands. > Such a waste, don't you think? Oh, I'm completely willing to believe that LV pulled Teen!Snape aside and said "You know those Good Guys are such wusses! They could never appreciate someone with your innumerable talents! But *we* do! We have a place for you in our organization, Sev. You could really go far with us..." However, I reject the bottom dregs of Prince of Lies Kool-Aid. I remind Cindy that Snape is supposed to be redeemed. She replies: > Yes, but what about the idea of *failed* redemption? Lots of > characters have had second chances (Hagrid, Snape, Lupin, Sirius, > Avery), but I don't think we've seen any character *squander* a > second chance. Maybe Snape will be the character who reverts back > to his Evil Old Ways. Erm. Last time I checked, Hagrid, Lupin and Sirius had never done anything bad. Foolish, but not Evil. So they are pretty weak examples of Second Chance characters. No, I think JKR is firmly set on her very model of redemption. Avery on the other hand, yes, he's the one who will squander his second chance. :-) Cindy opines on the banginess of Snape betraying Dumbledore: > Oh, and won't Dumbledore be slack-jawed when it turns out that Snape > didn't turn down Voldemort's opportunity. When it turns out that > Snape used Dumbledore as a stepping stone up the DE Corporate > Ladder. I'm thinking that will be a serious Non-Twinkle moment for > Albus. ;-) Much as I'm all in favor of wiping that dratted Twinkle off Dumbledore's face, I'm not convinced that this will be the way it's done. Come now. Wouldn't it be much bangier if the real betrayer is someone we *never ever ever* suspected? ~~Porphyria, heading off to check on those Flying Hedgehog membership benefits For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% 20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From ronale7 at yahoo.com Wed May 15 21:52:46 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (ronale7) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 21:52:46 -0000 Subject: Fatal Child Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38784 I had barely finished the first chapter of Sorcerer's Stone when I began to wonder if Harry was a "fatal child." A fatal child is the protagonist of a particular kind of myth, legend, or folk tale. In such a story a powerful person is warned his downfall will follow because of a child's birth--typically a son's or grandson's. Despite attempts to get rid of the child, it returns to fulfill the prophecy. Such a tale occurs in many cultures, world wide. For example, the Hindus have Krishna, the Greeks Perseus and Oedipus, the Irish Deirdre. Like other fatal children Harry survives an attempt on his life. Strengthening my theory is that Harry was born on July 31--August Eve (see chapter 8 of Sorecerer's Stone). This is the date on which the Celtic people held a festival in honor of their chief god, Lugh. Lugh was also a fatal child--he killed his grandfather. Even more support of the theory is found in Chamber of Secrets. In chapter 17 Voldemort notes that he and Harry are both parselmouths and even look something alike. If Voldemort is Harry's paternal grandfather, then a genetic inheritance would explain this. Nor is the theory disproved by Dumbledore saying (chapter 18, Chamber of Secrets) that Voldemort is the last remaining descendant of Slytherin. Yes, if Harry is Voldemort's grandson, then Harry, not Voldemort, would be the last. But it is also possible that neither Dumbledore, nor Voldemort, nor James Potter himself knew of the kinship. They may have known only the prophecy. Indirect support of the theory appears in Goblet of Fire. In chapter 1 we learn that Tom Riddle (Voldemort) had killed both his father and grandfather. And in chapter 35 we learn that Bartemius Crouch killed his own father. That's two parricides in one book--hard to ignore. This could be foreshadowing. It may be my theory is completely wrong, that the author will refute it in the very next book. Nonetheless I have entertained it happily. I will continue to do so till there's conclusive proof I'm mistaken. "ronale7" From draco382 at yahoo.com Wed May 15 22:41:57 2002 From: draco382 at yahoo.com (draco382) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 22:41:57 -0000 Subject: TBAY (I think....): Possible Parallel, but who knows... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38785 Sarah said: Personally, I'm fond of the > idea that Voldemort put his essence into Harry and is now unable to get it > back, but if Voldemort did like this the question remains: Why Harry, son of > two famous Good wizards? Did the irony appeal to him? Was the spell supposed > to corrupt him, but Lily's sacrifice saved him? Was there some power or > special attribute that only Harry possessed? yup yup...there is an amazing amount of irony...the most powerful dark wizard out there should fall at the hands of the son of the two most famous good wizards out there and end up putting a bit of himself into this kid. You know, I might be one of the only people out there who think this...but I found Lily and James a bit far fetched...a little toooooooo perfect. They seem so...perfect and squeaky clean...not that James didn't have his moments of trouble- making...but on the whole, I see no "dark side" to either individuals. Since JKR uses the theme of "things-are-not-what-they-seem", wouldn't it be interesting if Voldemort *PURPOSELY* killed himself at the hands of Harry? Some kind of elaborate plan to give people a false sense of security (now that he's "gone"), his essence can grow safely, unknown, in a muggle household and eventually end up getting into Hogwarts... And what better family for Voldemort to get into...the son of James and Lily Potter, the most brave and honorable Wizarding couple out there. Harry of course, grows up to be a brave and proud Gryffindor, just like his parents. Little does anyone know that the essence of Voldemort is slowly taking control over Harry and perhaps this is where Harry has to make that self-sacrificing choice to get Voldemort forever? Btw...I really like that LoTR comparison...very cool! Sorry if this idea had already popped up somewhere...hope it isn't too insane... ~Prithi From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Thu May 16 00:24:52 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 17:24:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Exorcizing the Prank In-Reply-To: <20020515152256.98231.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20020515152256.98231.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8890622526.20020515172452@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38786 I see kind of a strange parallel between this ubiquitous debate and one of the most ubiquitous debates on the Oz forum I moderate: When the Wizard sent Dorothy &c. off to vanquish the Wicked Witch of the West, there are basically two ways to view his motivations: One, that he was only trying to "scare" Dorothy into not bothering him again (more consistent with the Wizard's character in other canonical Oz books); or two, that he was maliciously out to "murder" Dorothy (the view Gregory Maguire upholds in his "heretical" book, _Wicked_). If we replace the Wizard with Sirius, the Witch with Lupin in werewolf form, and Dorothy with Snape, we've got the exact same controversy! Yet another weird Oz-Potterverse parallel... In both cases, I prefer assuming the purer motive and assume they both were just trying "to scare"... -- Dave From meboriqua at aol.com Thu May 16 00:59:08 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 00:59:08 -0000 Subject: Tough Hermione *and* Ron In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38787 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" wrote: > As Cindy pointed out later in the post, it would be boring if all > the characters were "tough". I hope she doesn't compromise > Hermione's character by giving her a personality change, any more > than I'd like Ron to lose his sarcastic sense of humor.> This is how I see it. Hermione and Ron are both pretty tough when push comes to shove (I loved Hermione stalking off to retrieve the invisibility cloak and Ron struggling to defend Harry with a broken leg in PoA). However, they both have their weaknesses, more of which I'm sure we'll see in the next books (if they ever come out, dammit!). Ron has a lot to work out when it comes to feeling as though he is lacking when it comes to money or fame. Hermione needs to accept that she can't always be first or right or best or... Either way, I can't see Harry choosing friends who aren't tough. Even Neville has shown surprising resillience (sp?) considering some of the things he's been through and Harry is quite accepting of his friendship. The Trio is strong, and IMO they work best as a trio. I see their strength growing in the next books, despite the conflicts I know they'll encounter, and both Hermione *and* Ron will continue to be Tough. --jenny from ravenclaw ******************************** From heidit at netbox.com Thu May 16 01:28:27 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 21:28:27 -0400 Subject: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective Message-ID: <20020516012827.13546.qmail@uwdvg008.cms.usa.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38788 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" wrote: I wrote: > > Or are you saying that because I've created an argument that I > have put into > > "dialogue" form through fanfic, that I am making waters very muddy > for myself? > > Would it be easier to make this argument credible in your eyes if > I had only > > argued it onlist? Because if that's the case, then please do go > back to my > > posts in September, 2000 and read my take on the possibilities > between Draco > > and Hermione. That predates the first chapter of my fanfic by > almost a month, > > and might therefore have more credibility in your eyes. Jo replied: > I don't know. It's an interesting question, but my problem with > using fanfic in this way is that we are no longer dealing > exclusively with Rowlings characters. > I think that any time people use fanfic examples to support their > opinions of canon, they are mixing apples and oranges. They are > taking characters that share the same names as JKR's, making them do > and say things that JKR has never had them do, and then > extrapolating arguments from this new, artificial construct. > Am I the only one bothered by this? I'm not sure what you mean bby "using fanfic in this way". I did not use any fanfic in my original post when I suggested that in a manner that parallels Pride & Prejudice, Draco might find it in him to overcome the elements of his attitude and behaviour that would preclude a relationship with Hermione (see various Draco Redemption threads). I admit that in rereading the books back in 2000, I did look at the narration and events from other perspectives - as the book is told almost entirely in third person limited and from Harry's perspective, we rarely know what the other characters are truly thinking, as we see everything more or less through Harry's eyes. Canon itself plays with perspective in a fascinating way - on your first read of Goblet of Fire, for example, the reader likely sees Moody as a good guy almost all the way through the book - but on a second read, knowing that Moody is really Barty Crouch, faithful servant of Voldemort, things he does which at first seemed delightful or at least benign take on a sinister glow - things like giving the book to Neville (obviously) but also things like his physical abuse of Draco (slamming him from floor to ceiling, moreso than the transfiguration) - and while we have a perfectly good explanation of the former (he wanted Harry to get access to the gillyweed information), the "obvious" explanation for the latter is somewhat sketchy. That explanation would be that he wanted to be on Harry's good side by showing himself to be an enemy of Draco's. But that doesn't really explain it all, to me - it seemed clear to me that he had a vendetta against Draco as the wealthy, at least superficially pampered child whose father was a Death Eater who walked free, and who kept his stature when even Crouch's own father lost face because of his familial relationship to a "convicted" Death Eater. My conclusion is borne out by canon at least as well as any conclusion that Neville is under a memory charm, but I have seen far fewer claims that making a conclusion like that about Neville is fanon based or stems from reading too much fanfic or that those who believe such things are getting confused between things written by JKR's fans, and by her, herself. I do admit to being troubled when people garble things from canon and fanfic - I've seen people wonder whether Orla Quirke or Aiden Lynch were fanfic characters (they're not, they're both in GoF) or be sure that JKR has said in the english-language versions of the book that Blaise is a girl or a boy, or state that Ron and Hermione kissed in GoF. It does bother me when people mix up their fictional "facts". However, it never bothers me when fanfic causes someone to think about a character a little differently, or to view a scene from a different perspective. JKR makes it SO EASY for us to do so, it's almost as if she wants us to examine certain things from the book from multiple perspectives! Just look at the debate about the Shrieking Shack Prank! Snape sees it one way, Sirius another, and Lupin probably a third. Or even look at Sirius' take on the real Moody, versus what Snape thinks about him - Sirius says that Moody didn't use unforgivable curses unless he really had to; anyone want to bet that Snape thinks Moody may be more like the police officer who says he had to shoot the unarmed suspect because he *thought* said suspect had a weapon? Is the latter conjecture? Possibly - but it's an entirely canon-based conclusion, just like a conclusion that Lily and James died young. I went back today and paged through Wide Sargasso Sea, Jean Rhys' novel which has been called a literary masterpiece. It's Jane Eyre fanfic - even the premise behind Rhys' writing of it is the same as many of those of us who write fanfic have. I found a comment in a literary journal today that said, "Rhys was always fascinated by Bronte?s novel ? especially the underlying story that was never told. Who was Mrs. Rochester, that mad woman locked-up in the attic? What was Rochester?s terrible secret? In Antoinette, Rhys has recreated that imprisoned woman, providing a haunting, tragic portrait of the fine line between love and madness." It also noted that there has been no 19th century wife more demonized than Mrs Rochester. By creating a "redemption" scenario for her, has Jean Rhys somehow ruined Jane Eyre for those who've read her book? Debatable. Is she making Mrs Rochester do and say things that Charlotte Bronte never intended? Certainly! Is that wrong or ruinous? Not from my perspective - but then again, I've always loved Rashamon and Rashamon-esque things. To give a less "highbrow" example, look at Anne Rice's Interview With a Vampire and The Vampire Lestat. The former is entirely from Louis' perspective, the latter from Lestat's - and the cover, to some extent, the same scenes and acts. We learn when reading Lestat that many things that Louis assumed about him - his background, his motives - were incorrect, and it's fascinating to go back and reread the first book, knowing the other point of view as you do once you've read the second one. I know if I continue in this vein I will be running off topic, so if anyone wants to pick up the thread of discussion of perspective in novels, let's do so on OTC. Lastly, I fear we keep running this conversation around in circles, Jo. You are convinced that I am arguing things based on what I've read in fanfic, or what I've written into fanfic. I can assure that nothing could be further from the truth, and were I doing so, I would be off topic for this list. Just because you personally don't see an argument as canon-based doesn't mean that it isn't actually just that. We're all reading the same books; none of us is reading them exactly like anyone else. As I said back at Post 37373, "Some speculation has more canon to peg itself to, some has less - but where there is canon basis, that speculation is reasonable and in the absence of new canon, I think (IMHO) de riguer." What is wrong with speculating, anyway? Heidi Tandy www.fictionalley.org Please reply to heidit at netbox.com ____________________________________________________________________ This message was sent from my Palm wireless email account. From chetah27 at hotmail.com Thu May 16 00:42:07 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 00:42:07 -0000 Subject: Quidditch/Re: Ambition in the Wizarding World (Ron, Percy and Bill) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38789 > Penny wrote > >>>>> BTW, I wonder if the tall lanky build is a liability in > Quidditch -- could this be one reason Ron hasn't attempted to try > out for the Team as a reserve player as far as we know? I'd not > really correlated before, but Debbie's right that the Twins share > the same build as Charlie, and it's the 3 of them who are the > Quidditch players. As far as we know, Bill didn't play Quidditch at > Hogwarts, and we know Percy didn't and Ron hasn't so far. > Interesting.<<<< Pippin wrote > Long, lean Tom Riddle doesn't seem to have been a Quidditch > player either. Maybe JKR has jockeys in mind. I don't think the body type really has anything to do with it- I think it sort of depends on the type of person. Harry has been rather deprived of many boyhood things, so when he discovers he has a natural nack for Quidditch, he of course delights in playing the sport. Both Percy and Ron are rather ambitious(on their own levels), and although Ron seems to delight in watching the sport(though maybe it's just because it's the "cool" thing to do?), perhaps he doesn't see going in as a team member as being very profitable in the long run. Also, Tom Riddle was very very very ambitious(you know, wanting to rule the wizarding world and all) and it seems he didn't find Quidditch playing as all that important. And plus, with the mentions of Ron's fear of failing, perhaps the though of having to be a member of a team and possibly playing a game in front of so many people just doesn't make Quidditch playing all that appealing to Ron. The only people we've seen excel in Quidditch beyond school would be Ludo Bagman and Viktor Krum- and they hardly seemed to have the same personalily types as the aforemetioned Weasely brothers. From nithya_rachel at hotmail.com Thu May 16 01:31:18 2002 From: nithya_rachel at hotmail.com (errolowl) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 01:31:18 -0000 Subject: Ron's Reward In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38790 <> I think Ron's pretty much in the same frame of mind! He'd love to be Head boy + quidditch captain + ...and lord it over his brothers, but he'd like it to just happen - like magic!..and hey, it just might at that! He ought to make a good headboy if you buy the argument that he ends up working better when it's for others (buckbeak trial, Chess sacrifice, etc.). Besides, that would be a trait that Dumbledore ought to appreciate and value in a leader. Of course, in my pet theory, the Draco/Ron animosity is played up - Draco is a shoo in for Slytherin Prefect, Ron doesn't even get to be prefect - but ends up as a surprise Headboy!! Poor Draco! I have big dreams for Ron.... Errol (who tires easily of ambitious discussions and prefers to live on dreams..) From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu May 16 02:20:03 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 02:20:03 -0000 Subject: Draco as Darcy? (Was: Re: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective) In-Reply-To: <20020516012827.13546.qmail@uwdvg008.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38791 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidit at n... wrote: > fanfic in my original post when I suggested that in a manner that parallels > Pride & Prejudice, Draco might find it in him to overcome the elements of his > attitude and behaviour that would preclude a relationship with Hermione (see > various Draco Redemption threads). I know this wasn't the main focus of Heidi's post, but it just jumped out at me and made me curious. While I don't expect any Draco redemption in later books, I'm not going to flatly rule out the possibility, either. But I don't see how it would parallel Pride and Prejudice. Darcy liked Elizabeth very early on, almost immediately after meeting her, and even before he liked her the sum total of his hostility amounted to not wishing to dance with her. Draco has known Hermione for four years, and still thinks of her as a filthy Mudblood who deserves to be killed for her inferior birth. Darcy is presented as scrupulously honorable. Draco lies and cheats. When Darcy finds himself moving in the same cirles as someone he despises (Wickham), he makes no move to harm him by either word or deed. Draco continually schemes to get people he dislikes into trouble. The misunderstandings that arise between Darcy and Elizabeth are as much her fault as his. There *are* no misunderstandings between Hermione and Draco, and the conflict between them is not Hermione's fault at all. Now that I think of it, I'm not sure what the literary precedent for a Draco/Hermione romance would be. I know that *villain redeemed by love* is a classic trope, but the only examples I can think of off the top of my head come from soap operas and cheap romance novels. I'm sure there are more "respectable" sources out there, I'm just blanking on them. I really don't think Pride and Prejudice is it, though. From elfundeb at aol.com Thu May 16 03:27:51 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 23:27:51 EDT Subject: TBAY: Memory Charm Neville Meets Reverse Memory Charm Ne... Message-ID: <16f.db33d2b.2a148137@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38792 In a message dated 5/14/2002 10:19:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cindysphynx at comcast.net writes: > > What I'm unclear on, Memory Charm believers, is who you think put > the charm on Neville. I mean, Tabouli really went after you Memory > Charm folks in Message 37,695. She explained how the Memory Charm > theory doesn't make sense if you believe Neville's family put the > charm on him to spare him pain or if you believe DEs put the Memory > Charm on Neville to cover their tracks. I don't recall that anyone > has really explained *who* would have put a Memory Charm on > Neville. Anyone? Anyone? > I can't let Memory Charmed Neville go undefended. First, though, I don't think Tabouli expressly disavows the Cover Your Tracks Memory Charm (though she does an excellent job on the protective use of the charm). She just jumped ahead to the Reverse Memory Charm. She said in message 36832 (the one Cindy cited is her own message in which she tries to find some action for Prof. Trelawney): > 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. > I don't believe the Reverse Memory Charm is necessary to explain the Cover Your Tracks Memory Charm (erm, I think we need an acronym for this). This assumes that Neville's testimony was necessary to identify the Pensieve defendants. While Neville's testimony would have been helpful, I'm not convinced he would have been capable of giving it, even if the Memory Charm was removed. It's equally possible that one of the Pensieve defendants was caught and ratted on the others, after a little, er, persuasion (either of the unidentified men would do here, as one had a blank look and the other was very nervous). But this was all preparatory to Cindy's question, which is to identify who put the Memory Charm on Neville. Actually, I think there's been little speculation from Memory Charm proponents on who performed the charm because it could have been anyone, including someone other than the person doing the torturing. The only possible limitation is that after the Memory Charm was performed, you don't want Neville remembering a strange DE standing in front of him. There are three ways around this: 1. Neville was too young to recognize a stranger. However, I think some time had elapsed between Voldemort's defeat and the Longbottom affair, so Neville may have been old enough for the perpetrator to at least be concerned about this. So this is perhaps not the most likely scenario. 2. Before performing the memory charm, the perpetrator executed some curse (such as the ones used on Snape in the Shrieking Shack in PoA or the ones used on Draco & Co. at the end of GoF) to knock poor Neville out, and left him apparently sleeping in his bed. This would have been easy. It even has a Bang. 3. The perpetrator was someone Neville knew. This seems very reasonable to me. After all, they needed to get into the house and breaking down the door might have given the Longbottoms enough warning to escape. There are lots of possibilities for this person, among them the Pensieve defendants themselves. While almost anyone might have known the Longbottom family, it would be more Bangy (just because you don't believe in the theory doesn't mean it can't have Bang, right?) if it was someone who was very close to the family, so that it would be a shocking revelation that he was involved. This leaves only one person among the Pensieve defendants: Fourth Man. The very same Fourth Man whose identity as Avery I doubted only a couple of short weeks ago. Besides, Fourth Man Friend of the Longbottoms has equal plausibility whether or not Avery is our Fourth Man. After all, Avery cannot be counted out as a relative of Neville's; Mrs.Longbottom may be the former Miss Avery. But there's also the possibility that a fifth person was involved, or that one of the Pensieve defendants was not involved but took the fall on behalf of that fifth person. Lots of possibilities here too, including but not limited to Snape the double agent (for those of you who think he's still evil, though I'm not sure why he would have known the Longbottoms) and Evil! Gran, my own favorite after Fourth Man. More from Tabouli's old post: > 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. > If only Frank was an Auror, why would Mrs. Longbottom have received a Memory Charm? I think this theory could only explain Frank's Memory Charm. In any event, I've got my own Memory Charm theory on the older Longbottoms, that in addition to (or maybe instead of) the Cruciatus Curse, the DEs executed Memory Charms on the Longbottoms. After all, the DEs can be expected to be thorough. Why be so careful with a toddler and skip the parents? But, you ask, why didn't they just kill the Longbottoms? Perhaps someone had gotten wind of what was going on at the Longbottoms and the Aurors were knocking at the door. Or maybe just anyone was dropping by, like Gran. Anyway, they didn't want to kill the Longbottoms because they had not yet succeeded in breaking the charm. If this is the case, then it's possible that the real problem with the Longbottoms is that either (a) the Memory Charm was botched, Lockhart-style, so they lost their entire memories, or (b) the MOM attempted to break their Memory Charms so they could testify but in doing so damaged their minds beyond repair, as happened to Bertha Jorkins. And so the MOM claimed that the Cruciatus Curse caused their insanity, to cover their own tracks. This would make their evidence *seem* quite unreliable. And on another detail, Cindy stated: > Somehow many of us take for granted that Neville was *right > there*, a cowering, helpless child listening to his parents tortured > shrieks, although there isn't a shred of canon to support this > assertion. So why do so many of us take Neville's presence as a > given? Because it is irresistably Bangy! It's a *huge* explosive > Bang! I mean, how can it possibly be that Neville was off spending > some Quality Time bonding with Formidable Gran and Bent Great Uncle > Algie while Frank and his wife are being tortured half-to-death by > Mrs. Lestrange, Mr. Lestrange, Crouch Jr. and Fourth Man? This will surely show how boring I am, but I thought Neville was likely there because he, um, probably lived with them and, well, might have heard his parents scream and gone to find them. But then again, is there any canon evidence that this happened at home? Debbie, who often feels like she suffers from a Memory Charm herself but is relieved to have found a new Bang for Fourth Man [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmmears at comcast.net Thu May 16 04:41:28 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 04:41:28 -0000 Subject: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective In-Reply-To: <20020516012827.13546.qmail@uwdvg008.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38793 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidit at n... wrote: > I replied: > > I don't know. It's an interesting question, but my problem with > > using fanfic in this way is that we are no longer dealing > > exclusively with Rowlings characters. > > I think that any time people use fanfic examples to support their > > opinions of canon, they are mixing apples and oranges. They are > > taking characters that share the same names as JKR's, making them do > > and say things that JKR has never had them do, and then > > extrapolating arguments from this new, artificial construct. Heidi then writes: > I'm not sure what you mean bby "using fanfic in this way". I did not use any > fanfic in my original post when I suggested that in a manner that parallels > Pride & Prejudice, Draco might find it in him to overcome the elements of his > attitude and behaviour that would preclude a relationship with Hermione (see > various Draco Redemption threads). No, you didn't use your fanfic to support the Draco redemption/Pride & Predjudice parallel. I was thinking that it was certainly unlikely that many readers (of canon), would consider this a plausable possibility, without having been influenced by any of a number of fanfics where both Draco and Hermione have had their personalities altered in a way that would make this possible. Of course, IMO, readers of said fanfics would have to have replaced canon Draco and Hermione with fanon characters bearing the same names, to be able to buy into the notion. However, you apparently found a very original way to somehow see this yourself in books 1 through 4. I just don't see how you were able to do this without ignoring 4 volumes of careful character development by JKR. I guess I'm just too literal-minded a reader to manage this leap. Heidi continued: > > Canon itself plays with perspective in a fascinating way - on your first read > of Goblet of Fire, for example, the reader likely sees Moody as a good guy > almost all the way through the book - but on a second read, knowing that Moody > is really Barty Crouch, faithful servant of Voldemort, things he does which at > first seemed delightful or at least benign take on a sinister glow - But that doesn't really explain it all, to me - it seemed > clear to me that he had a vendetta against Draco as the wealthy, at least > superficially pampered child whose father was a Death Eater who walked free, > and who kept his stature when even Crouch's own father lost face because of > his familial relationship to a "convicted" Death Eater. I can certainly agree with this one, although I also thought that realMoody would also bear some ill feelings toward L. Malfoy's son, for different reasons of his own. This would be particularly true when he witnessed Draco behaving in a typically slimy, Dad-like way, in attempting to curse Harry while his back was turned. Heidi continued: > I do admit to being troubled when people garble things from canon and fanfic - > I've seen people wonder whether Orla Quirke or Aiden Lynch were fanfic > characters (they're not, they're both in GoF) or be sure that JKR has said in > the english-language versions of the book that Blaise is a girl or a boy, or > state that Ron and Hermione kissed in GoF. It does bother me when people mix > up their fictional "facts". This *really* drives me nuts, too. I've seen it happen on a number of occasions, and it often goes uncorrected (I can't be the canon police ALL the time ). Heidi again: > However, it never bothers me when fanfic causes someone to think about a > character a little differently, or to view a scene from a different > perspective. JKR makes it SO EASY for us to do so, it's almost as if she wants > us to examine certain things from the book from multiple perspectives! Well, I can certainly agree with you there. However, I really hope she never reads some of the creepy things many writers do with her characters. My limited fanfic experience leads me to believe that the writers are going way, way beyond plausible different perspectives on canon. It's more like they want to wrest the series from Rowlings grasp because they believe that *their* version is better! Heidi: > To give a less "highbrow" example, look at Anne Rice's Interview With a > Vampire and The Vampire Lestat. The former is entirely from Louis' > perspective, the latter from Lestat's - and the cover, to some extent, the > same scenes and acts. We learn when reading Lestat that many things that Louis > assumed about him - his background, his motives - were incorrect, and it's > fascinating to go back and reread the first book, knowing the other point of > view as you do once you've read the second one. As long as Anne Rice is the one interpreting her characters, anything she reveals about them is canon. If JKR actually changes anyone's personality and can make it believable, then I'll not be able to argue with it. Heidi: > Lastly, I fear we keep running this conversation around in circles, Jo. You > are convinced that I am arguing things based on what I've read in fanfic, or > what I've written into fanfic. I can assure that nothing could be further from > the truth, and were I doing so, I would be off topic for this list. Just > because you personally don't see an argument as canon-based doesn't mean that > it isn't actually just that. We're all reading the same books; none of us is > reading them exactly like anyone else. Yes, we're probably boring the pants off most of the list with this. However, there are certainly degrees of separation from canon, aren't there? I've enjoyed a lot of the TBAY posts that have the merest shreds of canon support, but I assume that they are simply ways of amusing the list during the long, long, wait for the *real* stuff. Correct me if I'm wrong (again ), but I assumed you meant the redeemable Draco/Hermione romance seriously. > What is wrong with speculating, anyway? Nothing at all. I don't expect anyone else to stop writing or reading fanfic just because I don't find it satisfying or useful. I've just read a few too many posts from people who seem to prefer it to the real thing (which I thought was what this list was for). I really enjoy a lot of the wild theories, specs, and ships on the list as long as tongues are planted firmly in cheek ;--) I'll stop now. Jo S., getting very sleepy > > ____________________________________________________________________ > This message was sent from my Palm wireless email account. From Edblanning at aol.com Thu May 16 11:57:02 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 07:57:02 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY: The hedgehogs are flying (was:Re: TBAY: Ambition in t Message-ID: <30.26e0946f.2a14f88e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38794 Eloise, taking a break from helping Diana to furnish her new castle, settles down to catch up with her post. What's this? More accusations of perfidy? And the author...no, it can't be...the author is Alexander! That very same Alexander who dissed the idea of Evil!Bagman!....That very same Alexander, whose quote *inspired* the creation of the Order of the Flying Hedgehog! That very same Alexander has produced the biggest, most humongous, Bangiest Flying Hedgehog of them all.... the veritable Daddy of all Flying Hedgehogs: ************* Harry Potter is Ever So Evil ************* Eloise takes a little time to recover from this. I mean, even for the founder of this venerable order, this is hard to stomach. Fortunately, Diana's smelling salts have already been unpacked. Once recovered sufficiently, Eloise despatches one of the footmen (well, what do you expect, this *is* a castle, and if Diana can afford them....) to bring Alexander in for questioning. 'So, what do you have to say for yourself, then, Alexander?' >I say that Harry is dead, >and it's Voldemort is Harry's body. > Ever since I came to this idea, I have been enthralled by >it. It's really nice. It explains *everything*. Well, almost >everything. And events of books 1 to 4 start looking much >more interesting... > Book 1. Voldemort, being in Harry's body, penetrates the >Hogwarts - the place he wouldn't dare to visit if he was in >his normal body. Trying to steal the Philosopher's Stone, he >lets two wizards suspect each other in evil intentions: >Snape and Quirrell. Both are wasting their time and energy >trying to prevent the other from stealing the Stone. At >last Harry/Voldemort confronts Quirrell in the Chamber and >kills him. He fails to get the stone, though - Dumbledore >arrives and he has to eat humble pie - for now. > Book 2. A lot of diversions are made by Harry/Voldemort. >The result is general gain of Dumbledore's trust. > Book 3. Sirius arrives. I DON'T believe this criminal to >be a nice man! Sirius is Death Eater for sure, and he came >to bow to his Lord. And I don't believe this werewolf as >well. Perhaps Snape is the only one who almost gets to know >the truth - but he is knocked out by Harry/Voldemort and two >poor boys who actually believe and like Harry (Voldemort was >always good in getting others' trust). > Book 4. Voldemort sacrifices one of his Death Eaters >(namely, Crouch Jr), feeding him misinformation and >organising his eventual capture and death. I don't know how >much misinformation was in what Jeremy said to Dumbledore >under Veritaserum influence. > There are still facts that don't fill the picture. But I >must say that official version has such facts in much larger >amounts! And what's more important, with this version we >have to believe much less unbelievable things (Voldemort's >downfall, werewolves goodness and so on). 'Conclusive evidence there, my man. Congratulations. Now just hold still whilst I pin this badge on you.' At this point, Alexander begins to demur, > And last. This is all, of course, a joke. 'Oh no you don't, Alexander. Flying Hedgehogs are things we don't joke about.' A struggle ensues, Alexander finally being subdued by various members of the household staff. He knows he is defeated >But a one I like >and will protect with all my strength. 'That's the spirit! We'll make a true member of the Order of you yet. Oh, and you get an extra medal for naming Sirius as a DE, too.' No sooner than that is all settled and Alexander has departed, than the doorbell rings sonorously. It is Porphyria, who has come to make a complaint about a member of the Order. Cindy has been making accusations about Snape again. 'OK, Porphyria, what's she been saying this time?' > > I mean, maybe the > > reason he was able to return to Hogwarts at the end of GoF was > > because Voldemort allowed him to. Maybe Snape didn't prevent the > > Dementor from sucking out Crouch Jr.'s soul because Crouch Jr. was > > going to finger Snape as a DE who walked free. 'Look, darling, this puts me in a very awkward situation. You and I know that Snape's OK, don't we? But Cindy....well, Cindy just doesn't see things the same way, does she? And far-fetched accusations are what this organisation is all about. Sometimes they're just going to, well, conflict and you know we have a policy of inclusivity. No, I'm afraid we'll just have to live and let live. In any case, Cindy has that big paddle.' > > > > But poor Snape wasn't worried about the Dementor because he trusted > McGonagall, whose express job it was to guard Crouch Jr. So was *she* > the one who wanted young Barty to permanently keep still about some > vital fact? Is McGonagall Ever so Evil? Is that why she goes around > wearing Slytherin colors all the time, even though Snape himself > rarely bothers? Is that why she didn't warn Dumbledore in PS/SS after > Harry accosted her, convinced the Stone was in jeopardy? I bet she > finagled to buy him that Firebolt to get him on the Quidditch team > early so that Quirrell would have his shot at jinxing him off of it. > Yeah, she was in league with Q-man all along! And she really wants > Trelawney discredited, doesn't she? Maybe it's to keep people from > believing her *next* true prediction! Porphyria has Eloise's ear. Eloise, in fact, can barely contain her excitement. 'McGonagall? Ever so Evil? Is there any more?' > > Oh, yeah, I'm onto her. She's the one who can turn into a cat and > creep around the school late at night. Spying on Harry, no doubt. > Wait -- didn't she go to school with Tom Riddle? Maybe they were > lovers! Hang on: she's tall and thin and has black hair, just like > Tom -- maybe they're cousins! Or for those of you who like it juicy, > maybe they were both. >:-D > > See Cindy, I've just solved your problem about who LV's *real* loyal > servant at Hogwarts is. And it's not my poor, maligned Snape. You > have to admit Evil!McGonagall would be Ever So Bangy. > 'Mcgonagall is the 'loyal servant'! It's too good to be true! Here, sit down.' The castle, unlike Cindy's place, is well endowed with a fine range of single malts (Diana knows her priorities). 'What would you like? How about Talisker for a change? 'Now, Porphyria, there's one more thing. You know what this means, don't you? Yes, yes, apart from membership of the Order,' (Eloise presses a Flying Hedgehog badge into Porphyria's hand) 'This means...SUCCESS. This is the answer to all those who balk at the idea of Quirrell getting close enough to Snape's drink to spike it. This is the answer to those such as myself who just cannot stomach the Dumbledore variation. Now we have "SUCCESS, the McGonagall Variation": it was *she*, whom he trusted, *she*, with whom he had so often bantered about Quidditch scores, *she*, with whom he maintained a good-humoured rivalry as a head of house who did the dastardly deed and drugged him to prevent him from following Quirrell through the trap door. Poor, poor Severus.' Porphyria and Eloise console themselves with a few more glasses of Diana's fine single malts until the gong sounds and, ever so slightly unsteadily, they make their way in for dinner, where Diana is eagerly awaiting Porphyria's advice on decorating with gothic chic. Eloise, who has no idea what Kool-Aid is, but is pretty certain Diana doesn't have any in her pantry. PS, if anyone can work out how to make little hedgehog icons, please will they let me know? Every time I try, they come out like fish! For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% 20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From chetah27 at hotmail.com Thu May 16 03:45:37 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 03:45:37 -0000 Subject: Hermione-Seeking FemaleBud/P&P (Re: Cheese... Ron.-bashing Hermione... Harry...] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38795 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" wrote: My point is that > for the whole of Hermione's time at Hogwarts, she has only the 2 > boys as friends, and in spite of their bickering, she seems to have > a deep and ongoing friendship with Ron, rather than one of > convenience. I would, however, love to see her develop a close > friendship with another girl, while maintaining her place in the > trio. I really think she needs the kind of friendship and > understanding she'll never get from Harry or Ron, and that she's > overdue in that area. I do get the impression that this is what's > developing with Ginny, and I hope it continues for Hermione's sake. Oh, yes. I have wanted Hermione to have SOME sort of close relationship with a female friend, if not just to introduce a new female character to us. I think there is a rather wide variety of main male characters to choose from, but there really aren't that many female characters that we know that much about. I mean I like Hermione fine and dandy, but I wouldn't mind another female character introduced that compliments Hermione's strong/weak points as Ron and Harry do to each other(and I'm not saying Hermione doesn't contribute to Harry/Ron, she does- just not as much as they do to each other, in my eyes[and please don't pull just this bit out and go off about how Hermione DOES mean as much to Harry as Ron does- the argument about this seems to be popping up everywhere- that's not what I'm trying to say at all]). I think Hermione is also getting at the age where she might seek out a friend with whom she connect with better than Harry and Ron, and I hope she does so in the next book. Ooh, it would be great if it were Ginny, also. All we've really seen of her is a ducking red head with wildly bushing cheeks in a few situations, and I for one would love to find out more about her. > > > > Jo replied: > > > Sorry but, ROFL. As I remember P&P (read several times over the > > > years), Mr. Darcy doesn't ever wish Miss Bennet DEAD. While > there > > > were major misunderstandings between these two characters, there > are > > > none between Hermione and Malfoy. She LOATHES him, and with > very > > > good reason. Unless she "grows up' to be downright stupid, I > can't > > > see her suddenly becoming attracted to someone who regards her > as > > > being deserving of extermination because of her bloodline. > That's > > > just > > > a bridge too far, for me. I like the Draco-Hermione theory. I like it mainly just for the thought it provokes in even suggesting it- I would never have thought this up, but I find it very interesting that someone did; it gives you things to ponder and consider as you re-read the books. And although I very strongly see the parallel in Hermione and Miss Elizabeth Bennet, and I can see the connection between Draco and Mr. Fitzwilliam Darcy...I can't quite grasp a relationship forming, unless something happens that drastically affects Draco(death of a parent, perhaps). Mr. Darcy never actaully intentionally insulted, if I remember correctly- his opinion/attention were always drawn by some outward force. In the Harry Potter World, Draco is almost always the one that goes UP TO Harry, Ron, or Hermione and insults/degrades them- publically, if he can ever get the chance. And so unless Draco is secretly harboring some deep love for Hermione, and is only lashing out because he is ashamed to feel such things for a "mudblood", I'm not sure I see a Draco/Hermione love- fest on the horizon... "aldrea279" From sedate_fangirl at hotmail.com Thu May 16 12:48:39 2002 From: sedate_fangirl at hotmail.com (Sarah Tilson) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 08:48:39 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY (I think....): Possible Parallel, but who knows... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38796 Prithi said: You know, I might be one of the only people >out there who think this...but I found Lily and James a bit far >fetched...a little toooooooo perfect. They seem so...perfect and >squeaky clean...not that James didn't have his moments of trouble- >making...but on the whole, I see no "dark side" to either >individuals. To be fair, we haven't seen a whole lot of their actual personalities, just the testimony of their best friends, who would probably wouldn't be one to speak ill of the dead...'twould be interesting if Harry's beloved parents-he-never-knew turned out to be not quite the saints he imagined, eh? Twisted... >Since JKR uses the theme of "things-are-not-what-they-seem", wouldn't >it be interesting if Voldemort *PURPOSELY* killed himself at the >hands of Harry? Some kind of elaborate plan to give people a false >sense of security (now that he's "gone"), his essence can grow >safely, unknown, in a muggle household and eventually end up getting >into Hogwarts... >And what better family for Voldemort to get into...the son of James >and Lily Potter, the most brave and honorable Wizarding couple out >there. Now that is a solid evil plot! I'm hoping that Voldemort had thought about something like this, or is cooking up some fascinatingly twisted scheme for the next few books...Intelligent villains are so rare these days. Quirrell, Tom Riddle, Peter Pettigrew, and the like have shown themselves to be fairly clever, so let's hope thier master surpasses them all. Sarah ********** "I should have been a pair of ragged claws Scuttling across the floor of silent seas." ~~ T.S. Eliot _________________________________________________________________ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu May 16 14:24:59 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 14:24:59 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Memory Charm Neville Meets Reverse Memory Charm Ne... In-Reply-To: <16f.db33d2b.2a148137@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38797 Uh oh. Reverse Memory Charm Neville is seriously on the ropes now. I sense that he has taken a flurry of body blows, not to mention several direct headshots that have badly blurred his vision. Let's see if I can clear things up for the poor lad: ***************** The Dastardly Debbie maligned: > I don't believe the Reverse Memory Charm is necessary to explain >the Cover Your Tracks Memory Charm (erm, I think we need an acronym >for this). Yes, this is true. Memory Charm Neville has quite a few dandy acronyms, but Cover Their Tracks Memory Charm Neville is practically naked, as no one has even *tried* to grind out an acronym for him. Well, how hard can this acronym thing be, anyway? Anyone can do it if you just set your mind to it. To prove this point, I have wrestled control of the TAGSWATCH acronym generator from Tabouli and, if I twiddle the knobs juuuuuust so, I'm sure I can come up with the single longest and best acronym ever generated on the board: "Toddler Neville Received A Memory Charm Not To Spare Him Pain, But To Allow For A Successful Escape That Ultimately Didn't Work Out, I'm Thinking" (T.N.R.A.M.C.N.T.S.H.P.B.T.A.F.A.S.E.T.U.D.W.O.I.T). Now, how hard was that? Debbie continued: >This assumes that Neville's testimony was necessary to identify the >Pensieve defendants. While Neville's testimony would have been >helpful, I'm not convinced he would have been capable of giving it, >even if the Memory Charm was removed. It's equally possible that >one of the Pensieve defendants was caught and ratted on the others, >after a little, er, persuasion (either of the unidentified men >would do here, as one had a blank look and the other was very >nervous). Well, as much as I like Reverse Memory Charm Neville, I do have to nod to the brilliance and creativity of Debbie's theory. Could one of the four Pensieve Four have Cracked and ratted out the group? Let's use the process of elimination. 1. Mrs. Lestrange. Is there anyone, even a single soul, who thinks there is any chance at all that heavily-lidded Mrs. Lestrange Cracked? Mrs. "Throw us into Azkaban; we will wait!" Lestrange? Mrs. "This chained chair feels just like a throne" Lestrange? No, Mrs. Lestrange doesn't Crack; other people Crack when Mrs. Lestrange *tells* them to Crack. 2. Crouch Jr. Given his hysteria in the Pensieve scene, one gets the idea that he believes is really going to Azkaban. Mum and Dad sure seem to think so. And he does, which suggests that he didn't rat out the group. Also, Crouch Jr. as Fake Moody expresses no fear under Veritaserum that he might be in hot water for being disloyal. 3. Mr. Lestrange (blank stare variant or nervous variant). Well, maybe. Maybe Mr. Lestrange has been looking for a way out of that steel cage of a marriage for some time now, terrified of what might happen if Mrs. Lestrange learns he is planning to end it. But Sirius tells us that Mr. Lestrange is in Azkaban. So if he Cracked and gave up Mrs. Lestrange, then we have to assume he is dead, dead, dead because . . . Mrs. Lestrange would have beheaded him. I think that Sirius would know if Mr. Lestrange died in Azkaban from beheading or anything else, so I think he's *still* alive and perhaps seeking an annullment. 4. Fourth Man. Avery, if you like. Nervous darty-eyed Avery. Now this is where things get interesting. Maybe, just maybe, the way Avery wormed his way out of trouble was by mustering the courage to rat out Mrs. Lestrange. He stands there silent in the Pensieve scene (well, there probably was some trembling and sniffing and sniveling going on that young Harry missed), knowing he has cut a deal to be sprung from Azkaban. Yes, that's why he didn't prostrate himself before Crouch Jr. like he did in the graveyard. That guilt certainly does give Avery good reason to Crack in the graveyard all those many years later, doesn't it? It's possible. Definitely possible. Let's check the canon. I think I'm seeing some hurdles for Cracked Fourth Man. First, I always like to assume that Moody was involved in the arrest of the Pensieve Four. This explains Neville's terrified reaction to Moody, and it gives me a nifty way to explain the absence of Moody's leg and eye. It also explains Moody's absence from the trial of the Pensieve Four -- Moody was undergoing some *serious* physical therapy at the time. Now, I doubt that Real Moody would resort to a Cruciatus Curse to get Avery to Crack. Sirius says, "[Moody] was tough, but he never descended to the level of the Death Eaters." Now, Sirius was either in Azkaban or possibly hunting down Peter when the Longbottoms' torture occured, so maybe he is unaware that Moody used the Cruciatus Curse to get Avery to Crack. But I rather doubt it. Besides, Sirius tells us exactly how Avery wormed his way out of trouble: "From what I've heard he wormed his way out of trouble by saying he'd been acting under the Imperius Curse." Sirius also makes it clear how Karkaroff gets off -- he "did a deal" with the Ministry. So Sirius definitely knows the difference between getting off by claiming Imperius and doing a deal, so I think it's fair to assume Fourth Man Avery didn't turn in his accomplices. The only one who might have ratted them out would be Mr. Lestrange. And his continued presence in Azkaban rules that out entirely, IMO. Debbie continues: >Actually, I think there's been little > speculation from Memory Charm proponents on who performed the >charm because > it could have been anyone, including someone other than the person >doing the torturing. The only possible limitation is that after >the Memory Charm was performed, you don't want Neville remembering >a strange DE standing in front of him. There are three ways around >this: > > 1. Neville was too young to recognize a stranger. However, I think some > time had elapsed between Voldemort's defeat and the Longbottom affair, so > Neville may have been old enough for the perpetrator to at least be concerned > about this. So this is perhaps not the most likely scenario. I agree that this is unlikely. If Neville is old enough to recognize the perpetrators, or heaven forbid, if he actually *knew* one of them, I don't see how they would have left him alive, Memory Charm or no Memory Charm. And if they were worried about him, why not Stun him immediately so he doesn't even witness the crime? See, I'm thinking that the Cover Their Tracks Memory Charm theory requires Mrs. Lestrange to be about as forgetful as Voldemort. She would have to somehow overlook a toddler. That's hard to swallow, to tell you the truth. > 2. Before performing the memory charm, the perpetrator executed >some curse (such as the ones used on Snape in the Shrieking Shack >in PoA or the ones used on Draco & Co. at the end of GoF) to knock >poor Neville out, and left him apparently sleeping in his bed. >This would have been easy. It even has a Bang. Again, if they think to knock him out, why not do so *before* the crime? Besides, Neville can't be in bed. He has to be standing there wearing pajamas with feet in them. Having Neville snoring through this unspeakable torture is a bit of a Dud, I think. > 3. The perpetrator was someone Neville knew. After all, they needed to get into the house and breaking down the door > might have given the Longbottoms enough warning to escape. There >are lots of possibilities for this person, among them the Pensieve >defendants themselves. This leaves > only one person among the Pensieve defendants: Fourth Man. The >very same Fourth Man whose identity as Avery I doubted only a >couple of short weeks ago. Besides, Fourth Man Friend of the >Longbottoms has equal plausibility whether or not Avery is our >Fourth Man. After all, Avery cannot be counted out as a relative >of Neville's; Mrs.Longbottom may be the former Miss Avery. This is interesting on several levels. 1. Why didn't the Longbottoms escape? You know, Big Bad Frank should have held them off while Mrs. Longbottom followed the example of Lily Potter and . . . fled into a back room and begged for her life instead of even *trying* to defend herself or escape. Witches aren't very good at making clever escapes, are they? ;-) 2. I don't think we need to assume that the Pensieve Four knew the Longbottoms to explain how they located the Longbottoms. Frank Longbottom was a *hero*. Well, OK, he wasn't a hero, exactly. Dumbledore says he was "very popular." And how does an Auror get popular? By being a *hero*. I figure it wouldn't be that hard to track down a popular auror at his home. 3. Then there's the idea that Fourth Man knew the Longbottoms and used that relationship to set them up. Ooooh, my FEATHERBOAS have become rather perky at the very idea of this. Debbie is right that this is *tremendously* Bangy. But I want to push this idea in a different direction. If you'll just give me Avery as Fourth Man, I can produce an ear-shattering Bang for you -- bigger than Fourth Man Anonymous Friend. If Avery is Fourth Man and knows the Longbottoms, imagine the looks on their faces when they swing open the door, expecting Avery to present them with a nice hostess gift and a plate of his special homemade brownies, only to be staring straight into Mrs. Lestrange's heavily- lidded eyes. Oh, there's no time for escape at all under that scenario, is there? And what of poor Neville? Oh, he is a bit of a night owl and is toddling around. Mrs. Lestrange doesn't bother to knock him out or anything, because she's planning to kill him once she has the information she needs. But Avery stops her from killing Neville or killing the Longbottoms either. Avery was raised right and knows it is really *rude* to kill the host and hostess after an evening at their home. And this is where I'm willing to offer up a compromise. Avery proposes a Memory Charm on the kid. Mrs. Lestrange agrees, persuaded by Avery's plea that Mrs. Lestrange recruited him for this mission by *promising* no one would get hurt. (For DEs, "get hurt" doesn't preclude hours of the Cruciatus Curse.) Avery does the Memory Charm, but being a bit of a coward, he doesn't do a really *Big* Memory Charm. He takes a little something off of it because he doesn't want to hurt Frank's boy. But when Moody arrives, he and Crouch Sr. use a *monster* Reverse Memory Charm, which breaks through Avery's mini-Memory Charm and gets Moody an identification of the Pensieve Four. So you can have Cover Your Tracks Memory Charm Neville followed closely by my Reverse Memory Charm Neville. The Double Memory Charm theory! No wonder the poor boy is so screwed up. Cindy (noting that there is no room *at all* in the Double Memory Charm theory for a Benevolent Memory Charm) ******************** For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% 20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From ComtessadeChats at cs.com Thu May 16 14:36:19 2002 From: ComtessadeChats at cs.com (ComtessadeChats at cs.com) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 10:36:19 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Should Saw It? Message-ID: <1bf.1f60af9.2a151de3@cs.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38798 In a message dated 5/15/02 1:50:53 PM Mountain Daylight Time, Chelsea2162 at aol.com writes: > McGonagall should've realized then that although Moody was a tad (alright, a > but more than a tad) paranoid, and he acted first and thought later, but > honestly, he was BOUNCING a student! He was causing a student to repeatedly > slam into a stone floor! As soon as I read that, i knew that something was > up. > Also, Crouch/Moody knew exactly what had happened with the Goblet...true, > some people may say that the other teachers just figured he was taking an > educated guess, and thinking along the lines of the "bad guys" but he > actually SAID the EXACT thing that he had done in order to trick the Goblet! > > Anyone have any thoughts? Or notice anything amiss? > I have to admit to being totally in the dark about Moody. Yes, the ferret-bouncing was extreme, but we didn't really know Moody yet. It may have been totally in character for him. he is, after all, MAD-Eye Moody. I just assumed he acted first and thought later. Passionate people are like that sometimes! I know Dumbledore wouldn't hire a teacher if he wouls be a danger to the students, but the ferret episode didn't cause Dumbledore to be on his guard, so it couldn't have been too out of character for Moody. Maybe he's impulsive! Anyway, it didn't tip me off at all! I loved it! ~~~LYSA~~~ From Ahketsi at aol.com Thu May 16 15:35:36 2002 From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 11:35:36 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Fatal Child Theory Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38799 In a message dated 5/15/2002 8:13:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, ronale7 at yahoo.com writes: > Even more support of the theory is found in Chamber of Secrets. In > chapter 17 Voldemort notes that he and Harry are both parselmouths > and even look something alike. If Voldemort is Harry's paternal > grandfather, then a genetic inheritance would explain this. > The similarities between Harry and Voldemort have been explained in another way, by Dumbledore, which is probably correct. Dumbledore told Harry that he thought the night Harry was attack, some of Voldemort's... qualities I guess, were transferred to Harry. I think it's in CoS. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From sariadotia at aol.com Thu May 16 14:52:16 2002 From: sariadotia at aol.com (sariadotia at aol.com) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 10:52:16 EDT Subject: Hermione and Draco Message-ID: <18f.7fb75d0.2a1521a0@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38800 Ok, I honestly do not understand why so many people even consider this as a possible future relationship. No matter where you look, when the topic of romantic pairings is being discussed, the Hermione Draco approach always finds its way in. Lets be real people, Draco Hates Hermione! His attitude towards her is not along the lines of adolescent teasing, like Hermione and Ron. Draco is insults are personal, and harsh. He constantly refers to her as 'Mudblood'. Which is supposedly a repulsive term, and this shows even a lower level of disrespect since it avoids using her own name. How degrading. And in POA Malfoy says... "I'm quite surprised the mudbloods haven't all packed their bags by now... Bet you five Galleons the next one dies. Pity it wasn't Granger..." And you still think that there is a chance for a romantic relationship here? I don't even see room for a civilized relationship... Not to mention that Malfoy has a very high opinion of his father (he is always commenting on his fathers abilities, and what his father thinks or has done) He also seemed quite abashed in Borgin and Burkes when his father said... (referring to Hermione) "I would have thought you would be ashamed that a girl of no wizard family beat you in every exam." How do you think his family would react to his DATING Hermione!? He would be disowned as far as I can tell... and seeing how his family and his wizard heritage is one of the things Malfoy most highly values about himself.... I don't see him giving it all up. Just thought I'd point this out... and hopefully in the future people will stick to relationships that could actually happen! -Sarah [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Zarleycat at aol.com Thu May 16 19:05:51 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 19:05:51 -0000 Subject: Exorcizing the Prank In-Reply-To: <20020515152256.98231.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38801 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., ladjables wrote: > Hi all, > It seems to me that the Prank haunts the list, > rattling its chains around like Marley. I was > wondering if I could help lay it to rest, until the > Grand High Medium Jo does the job properly, that is. > >snip> > So, can prank-haters and prank apologists hold hands > now and skip into the sunset together? Or will those > chains keep clanking? I'd like to hear your thoughts > on the matter. Of course, if a prank war ensues, I > plead the Trelawney defense. A valiant try, but I think the answer to your question about skipping into the sunset is "Probaby not." I think the most we can hope for between the Snapists and the Sirians is an uneasy truce. We've beaten this particular horse, not only to death, but into some other dimension and I don't think we've come up with an answer that satisfies both sides. There will always be people pulling for Sirius who will insist that his intention was to scare, not kill, and that he impetuously set this whole thing in motion without thinking through the potentially horrible consequences of his act. And, on the other side, there are the folks who see this as either an obvious attempt at murder, or an act of such mean-spirited stupidity that it has tainted Sirius' character beyond redemption. Add to this that canon gives us the outline of what happened that night, not a minute by minute account. So, each side will interpret what is known favorably to their guy. Until we have more definitive information about the exact events of that night, I don't think either side will give an inch to the other. Marianne From doldra at hotmail.com Thu May 16 20:17:39 2002 From: doldra at hotmail.com (bystardust) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 20:17:39 -0000 Subject: Fatal Child Theory In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38802 Ahketsi wrote: > In a message dated 5/15/2002 8:13:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > ronale7 at y... writes: > > > > Even more support of the theory is found in Chamber of Secrets. In > > chapter 17 Voldemort notes that he and Harry are both parselmouths > > and even look something alike. If Voldemort is Harry's paternal > > grandfather, then a genetic inheritance would explain this. > > > > The similarities between Harry and Voldemort have been explained in another > way, by Dumbledore, which is probably correct. Dumbledore told Harry that he > thought the night Harry was attack, some of Voldemort's... qualities I guess, > were transferred to Harry. I think it's in CoS. We don't know that that's necessarily true, though. For one thing, Dumbledore could be unaware of some twist there is that no one really knows about (ex: Harry and Riddle being related); for another, Dumbledore could -be- aware of whatever twist there is and the transference theory could be either a cover-up, or only part of what's really going on. I like the fatal child theory: not only does it leave room for possible kinship between Harry and Riddle, but it makes a lot of sense when compared to classic stories and myths (the story of Oedipus is pretty much as old and basic as you can get). Doldra From doldra at hotmail.com Thu May 16 20:35:11 2002 From: doldra at hotmail.com (bystardust) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 20:35:11 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Hermione and Draco In-Reply-To: <18f.7fb75d0.2a1521a0@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38803 Sarah wrote: >>>>Ok, I honestly do not understand why so many people even consider this as a possible future relationship. No matter where you look, when the topic of romantic pairings is being discussed, the Hermione Draco approach always finds its way in. Lets be real people, Draco Hates Hermione! His attitude towards her is not along the lines of adolescent teasing, like Hermione and Ron. Draco is insults are personal, and harsh. He constantly refers to her as 'Mudblood'. Which is supposedly a repulsive term, and this shows even a lower level of disrespect since it avoids using her own name. How degrading.<<<< I'm not necessarily a big Draco/Hermione shipper, but I don't think it's nearly as implausible as you're saying it is. But I want to focus on defending Draco rather than go into that. As far as we've seen, Draco has been taught -his entire life- to look down on and hate people like Hermione. From his family's point of view, she's even worse than a muggle because she's a muggle "imposing" on the wizarding world. But just because he's been taught to spit out insults like the ones you quoted doesn't mean he believes them. If anything, it's his family's fault. I'm not saying this justifies his actions, and yes, the way he treats Hermione is very degrading and hateful. But just because he's a horribly spoiled brat doesn't make him a horrible and unredeemable person. I think that there's a lot more to Draco than meets the eye; I don't necessarily think that he's going to turn out to be a really great guy, but I don't think he's evil either. I'm sure we'll find out loads more about him as the series progresses. >>>>And you still think that there is a chance for a romantic relationship here? I don't even see room for a civilized relationship [...]How do you think his family would react to his DATING Hermione!? He would be disowned as far as I can tell... and seeing how his family and his wizard heritage is one of the things Malfoy most highly values about himself.... I don't see him giving it all up.<<<< Maybe Draco's desire to uphold his family honor isn't as simple as it seems. I'm sure he worships his father, but that doesn't mean he agrees with everything his father says; he does what he's told because he wants to please him. I think you're making Draco's character too one-sided, and that doesn't really do justice to him. He's a lot more complex than simply the token bully. Also, who says relationships have to begin as civil ones? As far as I know, most Draco/Hermione shippers don't operate off the notion that they're perfectly friendly with each other. Look at the Pride and Prejudice theory (who came up with that, by the way?). --Doldra From heidit at netbox.com Thu May 16 20:47:46 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 16:47:46 -0400 Subject: From HPforGrownups - Draco as Darcy? (Was: Re: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective)] Message-ID: <20020516204746.18515.qmail@uwdvg023.cms.usa.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38804 If anyone wants to get into a more extensive discussion of Pride & Prejudice we should move that over to OT Chatter... "marinafrants" wrote: > I know this wasn't the main focus of Heidi's post, but it just > jumped out at me and made me curious. While I don't expect any > Draco redemption in later books, I'm not going to flatly rule out > the possibility, either. But I don't see how it would parallel > Pride and Prejudice. > > Darcy liked Elizabeth very early on, almost immediately after > meeting her, and even before he liked her the sum total of his > hostility amounted to not wishing to dance with her. First, a few formative groundrules - including the obvious differences. Darcy is in his late 20s, a gentleman whose father has died at least five years before the novel begins. Draco is, when we last see him, fourteen years old and still quite under his father's (eye/control/thumb/financial grip/demands) (choose whichever one you feel most appropriate). Draco's father is abusive, at least to the servants (slaves, if you prefer Hermione's term) and many see him as also having been at least emotionally abusive to his son. Draco is, as I've said elsewhere, fourteen! And the only time he said he wished Hermione dead was when he was *twelve*. He didn't say it as a "wish" think in the end of GoF, he was just "predicting" what he saw to be the likely consequence of Voldemort's return. And he was actually accurate in his supposition - those who are muggles and muggle-lovers are actually most at risk now. And while you may dismiss Darcy's original reaction to Elizabeth as mere dislike, and note that he liked her not long after meeting her, even when he first proposed, he said that such a marriage - her connections and family - were a significant impediment to a marriage. "His sense of her inferiority -- of its being a degradation..." to wed her, were things that he discussed while *proposing*. So I don't think it's fair to even describe his feelings toward her as blooming with love and sunshine when he proposes, much less at any time before. Indeed, he says about Elizabeth and the other women at the assembly, "and there is not another woman in the room whom it would not be a punishment to me to stand up with." Punishment to stand up with? Sounds much closer to at least despairing of and hoping to never come in contact with than anything else, doesn't it? Darcy is clever/bright (we're given the impression that Draco isn't a complete loser in academia as his name isn't mentioned with Crabbe & Goyle in the list by Harry & Ron at the end of PS/SS, and it is implied in CoS that only Hermione beat him in all his classes). Darcy is also "haughty, reserved, and fastidious, and his manners, though well bred, were not inviting. . . . Darcy was continually giving offense." Also, it's common currency these days to have a few things established by teenage boys (especially the vaguely immature ones like Draco) including the fact that "I could kill her" or "I wish she was dead" doesn't necessarily mean that one actually *wants* to kill someone. It's almost a colloquialism that shows extreme dislike at the time, but no actual intent to murder. He's never actually hurt her, other than the time that he makes her teeth grow, but that curse was flung at Harry, not Hermione, and Harry's the one who inadvertently deflected it onto her. IN fact, arguments have been made that at the World Cup, he's trying to warn her away - at a minimum, he doesn't call the attentions of the Death Eaters to her, even though he had the opportunity. Perhaps he didn't have the intent or the motive? I am not a big fan of "zero tolerance" in schools, under which someone who says something like "I wish she were dead" would be considered as making an actual threat, although I recognize that some people might think that any such words should be considered as such. It really all comes back to the question of whether you think that JKR may not leave Draco's character flat out on the road to being an Evil Death Eater from his first appearance to his last (IMHO, what a *dead dull* thing to do!). In a series that's all about choices,. and how each person has to make them for themselves, it just feels like a tremendous cop-out for her to say that as Draco was born into the Malfoy family, and grew up strongly (perhaps almost exclusively until he was 11) influenced by Lucius Malfoy (who is possibly the *most* evil character in the books), he has no way to go but on the road to evil. He hasn't really had much opportunity to see things in any other way (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/34012) while at Hogwarts, and I don't think he gets much encouragement at home to explore different points of view. To paraphrase from Post 34026, thinking and feeling are very different from acting and doing. Let's look at Cedric's death from Harry's perspective - he's broken up about it, he's miserable and sick and in Very Bad Shape from watching it and being powerless to stop it. From a Slyther's perspective, he's that Gryffindor brat who somehow lied or cheated his way into the tournament, got help from a professor all the way through even though it was against the rules, then managed to get Cedric killed during the final task - and worst of all, he's never eve CRIED about it. See the difference? sariadotia at aol.com wrote: > > Ok, I honestly do not understand why so many people > even consider this as a > possible future relationship. Um, because nothing has happened to date to rule it out? Because JKR's sowed the seeds for a redemption for Draco, which would be a necessary precursor to such a thing happening? > His attitude > towards her is not along the lines of adolescent > teasing, like Hermione and > Ron. Draco is insults are personal, and harsh. He > constantly refers to her > as 'Mudblood'. Which is supposedly a repulsive > term, and this shows even a > lower level of disrespect since it avoids using her > own name. How degrading. His insults to Ron are actually a lot more personal and generally harsher - his insults to Hermione generally don't seem personal to her, the way his insults to Ron are completely personal - they're more to the "classification" of witch she is (i.e. Muggleborn). And he does call her Granger, but then again, she calls him Malfoy. And in one of the schoolbooks, Harry calls Ron "Weasley" once - you can't really read anything into that. And yes, he *does not like her* but I think he'd probably say that he hates her because she's better at classes than he is - in other words, jealousy, pure and simple. > And in POA Malfoy says... "I'm quite surprised the > mudbloods haven't all > packed their bags by now... Bet you five Galleons > the next one dies. Pity it > wasn't Granger..." > And you still think that there is a chance for a > romantic relationship here? > I don't even see room for a civilized > relationship... It's actually CoS - he's TWELVE or thirteen at the most. Should everyone be judged in perpetuity for the way they were at twelve? A bit unfair, don't you think? > Not to mention that Malfoy has a very high opinion > of his father I agree completely! Most kids do until they hit the teen rebellion stage, which he just has not gotten to yet, it seems. > How do you think > his family would react to his DATING Hermione!? He > would be disowned as far > as I can tell... and seeing how his family and his > wizard heritage is one of > the things Malfoy most highly values about > himself.... I don't see him giving > it all up. He'd be just as likely to be disowned for refusing the Dark Mark, if he chooses to do so. Or for not killing Harry at some random future point. Or for marrying anyone his parents (or at least Lucius) does not approve of. It's a lot to give up, I agree - money is a nice thing to have - but it's also very nice not to have to kill people because your father says so. That, IMHO, is probably what it's going to come down to for Draco, and he's either going to be able to do it, or he's not. JKR's given absolutely no definitive determination, so fr, which it'll be. And briefly... > and hopefully in > the future people will > stick to relationships that could actually happen! Why? Isn't predicting and guessing half the fun of debating the books? Why limit your creativity like that? And you know, some of us actually really do think that this is a relationship that could actually happen. It would be fascinating! Jo wrote: > I was thinking that it was certainly > unlikely that many readers (of canon), would consider this a > plausable possibility, without having been influenced by any of a > number of fanfics where both Draco and Hermione have had their > personalities altered in a way that would make this possible. Of > course, IMO, readers of said fanfics would have to have replaced > canon Draco and Hermione with fanon characters bearing the same > names, to be able to buy into the notion. Well, I know a few listies here who've been able to see that (a) Draco might not become evil, and (b) if he's not evil, he might be a good match for Hermione... just from reading posts on this Group and discussing the characters. Clearly, you recognize (see below) that I came up with the theory independent of what I garner from reading fanfics. I have no idea why you are so scornful of fanfics, and clearly I am never going to be able to convince you that they are a pleasent diversion, a way to explore the books in a medium different from straight debate or the Theory Bay roleplaying that goes on here on this list -but it's no less valid a medium of intellectual discource. (http://zendom.diaryland.com/020404_18.html) > However, you apparently > found a very original way to somehow see this yourself in books 1 > through 4. I just don't see how you were able to do this without > ignoring 4 volumes of careful character development by JKR. I guess > I'm just too literal-minded a reader to manage this leap. I actually think I am a literal-minded reader, just one who reads between the lines. I've seen the concept of "subtext" dissed in many other places as regards the character and plot developments in the books, but JKR's given subtextual hints throughout the books, and from one book to another, of important characters (Arabella Figg, for one) and characterisations (Snape, for another) that we haven't yet fully seen. Or look at the whole thread going on right now about Neville. I don't think that being a thoughtful reader, as I am, precludes also being literal-minded about the books - they can happily co-exist. > Draco has > known Hermione for four years, and still thinks of her as a filthy > Mudblood who deserves to be killed for her inferior birth. No, he thinks she's a Mudblood who is likely to be killed for her inferior birth (and also possibly because she is currently dating that POtter creep (why wouldn't he believe the Skeeter article?). And in Book 1, all he says is that he doesn't think that muggleborn witches & wizards should be taught magic at Hogwarts. There'a big difference between this and that. > Now that I think of it, I'm not sure what the literary precedent for > a Draco/Hermione romance would be. I know that *villain redeemed by > love* is a classic trope, but the only examples I can think of off > the top of my head come from soap operas and cheap romance novels. > I'm sure there are more "respectable" sources out there, I'm just > blanking on them. I really don't think Pride and Prejudice is it, > though. Would you prefer The Taming of the Shrew? Jane Eyre, where reckless Mr Rochester just forgets to tell Jane that he's still married and she still lives in the same house? Perhaps it's just that I see Draco as the foil and not the villain that I don't really find it easy to make such parallels either - he hasn't actually *done* anything evil, so I find it hard to parallel him to characters who have done evil things. It just doesn't fit. When I say, as I have done, that there is a possibility of a romantic relationship between Draco and Hermione, I am not speaking of something in Book 5, or even in much of Book 7 - I do think, though, that JKR has created, in Draco, a character who can overcome his pride *and* his prejudice. The critical descriptions of Darcy throughout the book resonate in the descriptions of Draco - family pride, the belief that others are not good enough to associate with, the tendency to pass judgments about people and situations without looking too closely - all those things apply to both Darcy and Draco. And nobody has even bothered to criticise the very obvious parallels in personality between Elizabeth and Hermione - they are both cynical and idealistic at the same time. If JKR wanted to create a resonance between P&P and a relationship in her books, she could easily and reasonably do so. heidi tandy Please reply to heidit at netbox.com ____________________________________________________________________ This message was sent from my Palm wireless email account. From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu May 16 20:51:22 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 20:51:22 -0000 Subject: Exorcizing the Prank In-Reply-To: <139.e494163.2a142369@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38805 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > Finwitch: > Canon actually states that they took less than ('the best part of') three > years to become animagi. Lupin says they achieved it in Fifth year. I think > the clear implication, assuming that Lupin tells his story chronologically, > is that they were, by the time of the Prank, although I'm not sure how > relevant it is, really. I don't think it is relevant at all -- now that I rethink it. > An intriguing idea, but unfortunately contradicted by canon. > Lupin says that Snape *saw* Madam Pomfrey leading him to the willow . The > text is slightly ambiguous, it *could* have been on an earlier occasion, > although I think the implication is that it was on the night of the Prank. > James lending the invisibility cloak to Remus implies that Madam Pomfrey > knows that James, at least, knows Remus' secret and we have no canon evidence > of this. It also contradicts the canon evidence that Madam Pomfrey visibly > led Remus to the willow (and there is no indication that she shrank him or > anything else - in fact, this could have been quite useful, couldn't it? A > shrunken Remus could presumably have been contained quite easily!). Use of > the invisibility cloak is also contradicted by Lupin's statement that the > others used to sneak out of the castle under the invisibility cloak when they > went to visit him. Hmm... This *can* support my misunderstanding theory too. Snape *saw* Lupin entering the corridor and at least one of the Marauders knew it. OK - PP was keeping watch as a rat or under invisibility cloak and saw Snape enter the corridor. He *still* can tell Sirius and James about 'Snape knowing'. > Sorry, this all sounds terribly negative, but I do appreciate your brave > attempt to turn the Prank into a misunderstanding! :-) Oh but your commentary merely helps me to modify the details so far -- to *better* and more believable theory. No need for Peter's blunder for Snape to figure out how to get into the corridor. And about how Peter knew that Snape was there... well, he saw him! As a rat or under invisibility cloak or even both. This new modification on details even leaves it to *Peter* to draw the conclusion that Snape knows about the Whomping Willow. Peter also *doubts* - but isn't certain - that Snape knows Remus' secret. I'm also relieved not having to separate James and Sirius - All three wondering how to figure out if Snape knows the secret or not, without giving it out -- even so that *no one* overhearing will hear the secret. Difficult thing to do, with any secret. They'd discuss it in Hogsmeade, Three broomsticks. Even including Lily who may or may not know about Remus. Snape enters and hears them discussing: "I wonder if Snape knows... the corridor..." "How could we find out without..." Definate call of interest. Group of people discuss *him* and his knowledge. Being willing to shine in knowing something they don't (particularly to these people) he approaches them. (Snape's conspiracy theory including James to back this up!) Sirius is the one who asks the question. "Why you don't put out a stick ... and go past the Whomping Willow now?". Snape goes to do that - throwing in a comment that he just *might* do it in order to win. Then he leaves and *does* go there. Lily asks why not - and is told that it's extremely dangerous and thus out of bounds. A little discussion: "Do you think he's *going* there?" "Think he was just saying so" "What if he wasn't?"... Finally, James goes after Snape and Lily, followed by others, goes to inform Dumbledore. James saves Snape's life - Snape thinks that Sirius asked the question in order to get him killed in conspiracy with James who wanted to cancel the act; Sirius thinks Snape *knew* all along and merely went there so that he'd get Remus killed because of being a danger to a student... (like Draco did with buckbeak); Snape considering it a murder on *him* by Sirius Black, James Potter & possibly the others, which ended with his life-debt to James Potter; Sirius sees it as a murder on Remus by Snape for pleasure... I'm not giving up the idea of the misunderstanding. It *does* put all of them in as positive light as possible, explains Snapes comments about James Potter getting away with breaking rules (being out of bounds that night); Big hatred between Sirius and Snape... As while Sirius isn't all that angry about unfair things done to himself, (like the lack of trial! He didn't seem to mind all that much to me when he told about it) but someone who dares to harm his *friends* makes him *extremely* angry, like PP actually harming James and presumably harming Harry; Or, to his mind - Severus Snape presumably having harmed Remus... Why Sirius feels no guilt on *that* but does about the switch-- Details may still need modification - but the general idea of a misunderstanding-- it's *still* just fine. Would do as a compromise for Sirists and Snapists... misunderstanding that wasn't a fault of either one. -- Finwitch From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu May 16 21:47:32 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 21:47:32 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Exorcizing the Prank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38806 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > I'm not giving up the idea of the misunderstanding. It *does* put all > of them in as positive light as possible, explains Snapes comments > about James Potter getting away with breaking rules (being out of > bounds that night); Big hatred between Sirius and Snape... As while > Sirius isn't all that angry about unfair things done to himself, > (like the lack of trial! He didn't seem to mind all that much to me > when he told about it) but someone who dares to harm his *friends* > makes him *extremely* angry, like PP actually harming James and > presumably harming Harry; Or, to his mind - Severus Snape presumably > having harmed Remus... Why Sirius feels no guilt on *that* but does > about the switch-- > Would do as a compromise for Sirists and Snapists... misunderstanding > that wasn't a fault of either one. As a fan of both Snape and Sirius, I'm sorely tempted by any theory that manages to put them both in such a harmless light. But -- and George is going to throw a fit at me for saying this -- it's just not Bangy enough. I mean, the Prank is a big, big event in the backstory! Canonically, it's the cause of Snape's life-debt to James. Theoretically, it may be at least a partial cause of Snape's joining the DEs, and of his refusal to listen to reason in the Shrieking Shack in PoA (thus preventing Sirius from clearing his name). We're talking about an event whose consequences are still resonating nearly two decades later -- and you're suggesting it was all just an innocent misunderstanding where no one meant any harm? Where's the drama in that? Oh, come one, George, don't look at me like that! Don't give me those big eyes and that pouty lower lip. I know I promised to stand shoulder to shoulder with you in the battle against Bangy theories. But the Prank is a canonical Bang, not an invented one, so we're stuck with it. It's not my fault. Take it up with JKR. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 16 22:29:43 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 22:29:43 -0000 Subject: Perspective and the Potterverse wasRe: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective In-Reply-To: <20020516012827.13546.qmail@uwdvg008.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38807 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidit at n... wrote: >>>>>> I did not use any fanfic in my original post when I suggested that in a manner that parallels Pride & Prejudice, Draco might find it in him to overcome the elements of his attitude and behaviour that would preclude a relationship with Hermione (see > various Draco Redemption threads). I admit that in rereading the books back in 2000, I did look at the narration and events from other perspectives - as the book is told almost entirely in third person limited and from Harry'sperspective, we rarely know what the other characters are truly thinking, as we see everything more or less through Harry's eyes. > Canon itself plays with perspective in a fascinating way - on your first read of Goblet of Fire, for example, the reader likely sees Moody as a good guy almost all the way through the book - but on a second read, knowing that Moody is really Barty Crouch, faithful servant of Voldemort, [snip remainder of example]<<<< I am not sure I would call this playing with perspective. On second reading, our viewpoint is still the same: through Harry's eyes. It is our knowledge set that is different. What we imagine Crouch is thinking the second time through will change drastically, but that is not the same exercise as re-imagining the entire novel from Crouch's perspective, or from Draco's. Perspective in a novel, like perspective in art, is an illusion. The fact that we see Harry's world mostly through his eyes gives us an illusion of depth, a sense that the wizarding world has an independent existence. This illusion, like the illusion of perspective on a stage, can only work from certain points of view. If you leave the author's chosen viewpoint and go poking around backstage as it were, you will find the illusion spoiled. It is like looking at a backdrop up close. What seems realistically rendered from your seat in the audience is quite impressionistic from a few feet away. Try to re-create the Potterverse from another character's point of view and you confront the fact that much of Rowling's world is not realistically rendered after all. Certainly the Slytherins are not. The young Slytherins are one dimensional and most of their atmospheric and symbolic contribution to the Potterverse rests in this. However, Slytherin's artificiality has to remain imperceptible to the characters themselves. Harry can fear Slytherins or co-operate with them, or ignore them. The one thing he cannot do is recognize that Slytherin itself is absurd, a comic conceit or a travesty. It is really not a House but an anti-House, the house that quite unapologetically socializes children to be anti-social. Of course Dumbledore can not recognize this either. He can explain why Harry is truly a Gryffindor, but how could he tell the Slytherins why they are truly Slytherin without becoming someone other than the wise and benevolent Headmaster? He can't very well explain to them that they are part of a literary construct . Of course this means that Hogwarts is delightfully dysfunctional, another thing the characters can't be allowed to grasp without ruining the fun. Slytherin is the elephant in the Hogwarts living room. Everybody knows that Slytherins go bad but only the bumptuous Hagrid is willing to speak of it. Dumbledore, for all his wisdom, literally does not see. As long as the Slytherins are part of the background, their one dimensionality is appropriate to the story.I can interpret Slytherin as a wry social commentary on all the sad institutions which inadvertently perform its function in the real world, or as Harry's Don't Bees, or as a symbolic representation of one part of the human personality. The moment I try to conceive of them as morally complicated, however, their situation makes no sense. Are they Slytherins because the Hat recognizes that at the age of eleven they are "criminally incurable"? OTOH, if they aren't hard cases, why treat them as if they were? I don't think Rowling can show us Dumbledore or Hermione or anyone else trying to redeem the Slytherins. The Slytherins aren't there to be redeemed. They aren't real enough for that. Yet Slytherin is a House divided. At the end of PS/SS, Snape shakes McGonagall's hand while Draco sits fuming. At the end of GoF, some Slytherins stay seated while others rise. This division may take the place of the complexity which JKR cannot show us. Draco, for example, could change sides and *then* be developed as a complex character, just as Snape has been. Pippin From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu May 16 22:42:20 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 22:42:20 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Exorcizing the Prank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38808 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > As a fan of both Snape and Sirius, I'm sorely tempted by any theory > that manages to put them both in such a harmless light. But -- and > George is going to throw a fit at me for saying this -- it's just not > Bangy enough. Let's try for something more Bangy then. It's not Snape whom Sirius tried to kill that night, it's Remus who was supposed to die. Sirius says that Snape knew lots of curses when he started Hogwarts, so he must have been quite well armed by his fifth year. I bet there is some "magical" way to kill werewolf besides the silver bullet. So, what Sirius was doing sending this dangerous person to meet his "best friend"? He'd really counted on Snape to succeed, hadn't he - judging how he still hates him for failing after all those years. That would be quite Bangy in my book. :-) Irene From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu May 16 23:15:36 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 23:15:36 -0000 Subject: TBAY & SHIP: Exorcizing the Prank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38809 Irene wrote (about squeezing some Bang out of the Prank): > Let's try for something more Bangy then. It's not Snape whom Sirius > tried to kill that night, it's Remus who was supposed to die. > Sirius says that Snape knew lots of curses when he started Hogwarts, > so he must have been quite well armed by his fifth year. I bet there > is some "magical" way to kill werewolf besides the silver bullet. > So, what Sirius was doing sending this dangerous person to meet > his "best friend"? He'd really counted on Snape to succeed, hadn't > he - judging how he still hates him for failing after all those years. > > That would be quite Bangy in my book. :-) It has come to this, has it? Now we have Sirius using Snape as a tool to kill Lupin? Lupin, one of Sirius' best friends? Adorable little Lupin, who would never hurt a fly (except for being willing to rip people limb from limb a few nights a month)? Well, it could never happen. Never. No way. I won't hear of it. Unless . . . Unless . . . Unless Sirius had a *major* motive, some reason to be in an awfully murderous mood with Lupin. And that motivation would have to be huge, wouldn't it? It would have to involve . . . a girl! A mysterious girl. A girl who was kissing someone behind the greenhouses. Yup. That's right. You heard correctly. Florence was *Sirius'* girlfriend, and Lupin was kissing Florence behind the greenhouses. Bertha stumbles across this passionate scene in which Lupin is enjoying Florence's affections. Bertha cannot contain herself and accosts Lupin about it later, and he promptly hexes her. (Lupin, being good at DADA, is also pretty good at hexing people). Dumbledore straightens everything out . . . everything, that is, except Sirius' temper. Oh, that Sirius starts to stew. Lupin has a girlfriend (oh, don't you just *love* the idea that Lupin finally Gets The Girl!), James has Lily, and Dead Sexy Sirius, who ought to have his pick of the ladies, has . . . Snape. Now, Snape wasn't directly involved in the Florence/Lupin fling. It's not Snape's fault that Sirius can't deliver and is so ham- handed at romance that Florence would prefer a werewolf over Sirius. Sirius has never suffered rejection quite like this, and he's going to get even with Lupin if it's the last thing he does. Why not use Snape to kill Lupin, getting rid of Nosy Snape and Cheating Lupin at the same time? It's a win/win for Sirius. Either Snape dies and Lupin is expelled, or Lupin dies and Snape is expelled. Why, it's the perfect plan! Cindy From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu May 16 23:02:24 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 23:02:24 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Exorcizing the Prank In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38810 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > As a fan of both Snape and Sirius, I'm sorely tempted by any theory > that manages to put them both in such a harmless light. But -- and > George is going to throw a fit at me for saying this -- it's just not > Bangy enough. I mean, the Prank is a big, big event in the > backstory! Canonically, it's the cause of Snape's life-debt to > James. Theoretically, it may be at least a partial cause of Snape's > joining the DEs, and of his refusal to listen to reason in the > Shrieking Shack in PoA (thus preventing Sirius from clearing his > name). We're talking about an event whose consequences are still > resonating nearly two decades later -- and you're suggesting it was > all just an innocent misunderstanding where no one meant any harm? > Where's the drama in that? Drastic consequenses out of a misunderstanding not Drama enough for you? To think of it - if misunderstandings can have *so* severe consequenses what kind of effect can a true intent of harm cause? Not that misunderstandings with severe consequenses haven't been in place already: Ron & Harry had theirs in book #4 before the Dragon; -- Finwitch From jmt59home at aol.com Fri May 17 00:30:39 2002 From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 00:30:39 -0000 Subject: TBAY: more Neville theories (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38811 Okay, I'd better start answering my own questions (staring at the pile of revision that is meant to be done as there are six exams next week and I don't know a thing!!.) I had probably better say that I am not an english student or a psychology student so any thing that is I say, is purly speculation and from a rather ignorant viewpoint. Okay here we go... My own acronym!!! (very excited) W.I.N.C.H, Why Is Neville Choosing Humiliation, *smiles proudly* I am not a fan of the memorey charm thing, simply because its too easy. Yes, it has been hinted about Bertha and all that to do with charms etc but I think Neville's forgetfullness and clumsiness is his own doing. It could for one or more of the reasons I'm about to lay out. I do think Neville saw what happened to his parents but there is more to the story. He is a very sweet and gentle characture but there is a sadness about him too and that is what will play a role in the future. Er, I'd better point out that I don't really have any proof for any of the following and yes, they conflict each other. Firstly, guys and gals, Barty Crouch Jnr was one of those accused of the torture, surly it makes sense that he would have found out about Voldermort via his father who would have heard it from Frank, it could be possible that he was even there when Crouch Snr was told. Since Frank would have known Barty Crouch Jnr and his father, if he was to knock on the door, I don't think Frank would see it a suspicious until too late! Hence why the Longbottoms were targetted and why Mrs L and kid/s couldn't run. Why weren't they killed? Well the D.Es can't find Voldie without them, and when the MoM were on they way, the death eaters made a run for it rather then get caught, it's easier to talk later then at the scene of the crime. Which brings me on to W.I.N.C.H. Either Neville could have had a older/younger sibling and both (or more) of them were there. At a guess, Neville was four (I still remember things from when I was four), it would have taken a long time before Aurors were safe to come out of hiding. That means, as soon as the parents knew it was a trap, they told Neville and other to run while they held back the DEs (again, I am guessing that there were more then 4 DEs) but little ones was caught but, following parents example, tried to save each other and protect themselves, but other one died. or blames himself for not being able to help his parents Four year old Neville is very distraught and blames himself and this is not dealt with and is the filth under Neville rug, all he can see, is himself as a failure and so starts a vicious circle. In this case, Gran could have said that Neville wasn't there to spare him the pain of having to re-live the events that happened, or to lay a trap for the DEs because if Frank and wife were in hidding, then only those very close to them would have known that they had had any children at all (hence the reason Mr and Mrs Weasley have never mentioned the Longbottoms to Harry and co, why would Harry and Ron know about them?)Gran is very loving but strict towards Neville to try and help him get over it but he feels that he has let everyone down and downplays himself because of no self confidence. In summary, Case one. Guilty Neville. Neville is stopping himself from achieving out of fear and guilt. Case two. I have Greywolf to thank for this one. As Greywolf said in a reply to my previous post, Neville's Gran is protective but not loving. Very lonly Neville is on gran's doorstep, who live in a house on her own. Gran is a very scary person to a four year old who has seen his parent go insane (little sibbling theory doesn't have to apply here) and is confused and scared. Gran is very strict and little Neville wants attention and love and a hug but is not sure how to get it from Gran and so starts becoming clumsy and forgettful so he can have more attention from gran. This has a bit of a bang to it. How easy is it to manipulte Neville if its love and attention he is seeking because if the above is true, he is not getting the attention he really wants and has been settling for second best? "What is easy and what is right", would Neville be able to fight promises of having a proud and loving master/mentor to save friends? It does seem that the "family" want Neville to be some type of avenger and Neville wants nothing to do with it. I think that he also feel that he doesn't have anyone he can really talk to. That is why I am worried about the little guy!!! He is not going to have an easy time in any case. Neville needs a big hug! Dogberry who despite having exams next week is still trying to find ways out of revision. From skelkins at attbi.com Fri May 17 01:07:32 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 01:07:32 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Memory Charm Symposium (1 of 3) (Long) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38812 Elkins was still unpacking from her vacation, wondering how on earth she could possibly have managed to get that much sand into such a small rucksack, when she heard a strangely Cinister voice, crying out in the wilderness: > I don't recall that anyone has really explained *who* would have > put a Memory Charm on Neville. Anyone? Anyone? Oh, that Cindy, Elkins thought. What a kidder she is. But then she remembered once hearing something similar from Karen. Something along the lines of: > The whole Neville back story possibilities are fascinating, as well > as the Weasley's cousin thing. So the more the better on this, and > such things. The more the better, eh? Elkins nodded grimly to herself. Well, she thought. Well, well, well. *Right,* then. ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> <>(("> Okay. You guys want to hear some memory charm theories? Well, aren't you in luck! Because, by an amazing coincidence, I just happen to have a whole backlog of Still Life responses dealing with memory charm theories sitting right here in front of me. They're a bit yellowed with age, true, but as adherents to the Reverse Memory Charm theory will happily tell you (from the comfort of their cushy MATCHING ARMCHAIRs), there's nothing quite like the persistance of memory when it comes to driving the point home that the passage of time can itself sometimes prove a *highly* subjective phenomenon. So. Let's get to it, shall we? If anyone wants a little refresher course on the canonical evidence for this body of theories before we get started here, then they might want to try message #36421, in which Kelly the Yarn Junkie compiled a very nice list of canonical suggestions for Memory Charmed Neville, as well as message #36772, in which I added quite a few contributions of my own. Alternatively, any search through the archives should yield plenty of (very similar) defenses for this theory. Memory Charm'd Neville has been around for quite a long time. Why, he has nearly as much moss growing on him as _Goblet of Fire_ itself does! Hell, these days even Memory Charm'd Neville's *moss* is starting to grow moss. In fact, people have by now come up with so many variations on the mossy old Memory Charm Theory that a single lecture just doesn't cut it anymore, so I propose that we hold a symposium instead. I've rented a lecture hall for us down here in the basement of the Canon Museum, and I've got one of those cool laser pointer thingies, and I even stopped by Inish Alley on my way over to pick up some boxes of discounted badges, so feel free to come on over. (If you sneak into the Museum by way of the secret tunnels underneath the snack bar, by the way, then the security guys shouldn't be able to hassle you.) So sit down, pull up a seat, make yourselves at-- Oh! Oh, but *do* be mindful of that matching armchair! Yes. Yes, I know. It looks so darned *comfy,* doesn't it? But take it from me: it's really a whole lot wobblier than it may at first appear. Hardly has a leg to stand on, in fact. You can sit there if you really want to, of course -- I mean, that's totally up to you -- but don't come around later saying that I didn't warn you, okay? Okay. Everybody settled in now? Good. This symposium looks likely to run pretty late into the evening, so every few theories or so we'll stop for a break to let the smokers step outside and feed their addictions. And if things seem to be getting sillier and sillier as the evening wears on...well, given that a "symposium" was originally a type of Greek drinking party, that's probably only to be expected. Or possibly, just possibly, the fact that we're going to be tackling these theories in rough order of Wild-and-wooliness (which, I hasten to point out, is absolutely *not* the same thing as canonical likelihood -- if you don't believe me, then just look at what JKR did with Scabbers!) might have something to do with that? Naaaaah. Couldn't be. So. First on our agenda, we've got a trilogy of relatively benevolent theories, all three of which eschew the traditional notion of Neville as under the influence of a formal memory charm spell. These are the "No Suppressed Memory At All," the "Psychological Repression," and the "Spontaneous Magic" readings. Once we're done with those, then we'll conclude with that moss-encrusted classic, the Good Old- Fashioned Well-Intentioned Memory Charm. This should warm us all up quite nicely for the far darker and crueller and stranger theories yet to come. ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> <>(("> Our very first theory isn't really a Memory Charm theory at all, truth be told. In fact, it's sort of an *anti*-memory charm theory. I include it here nonetheless, though, because it does rely on the same basic premise as nearly all of the memory charm theories: namely, that as a very young child, Neville witnessed his parents' torture (or some other Very Bad Thing), and that this event is inextricably connected in some manner to his chronic canonical forgetfulness. We might call this first one... ********************************************************************* --The "No Suppressed Memory At All" Theory-- (Otherwise known as: "Badges? We don't need no stinking badges!") Memory Charm. Whodunnit? Well, no one. No one done it, because it was never done. There is no memory charm, nor any other type of memory suppression. Neville's memory is just fine, really. If it seems at times to be faulty, then that is merely because the poor lad is so preoccupied with dealing with the trauma of his past that it distracts him from concentrating on other matters, like his day-to-day affairs and his schoolwork. --------------------- Tabouli made a brave case for this one. She wrote: > 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. Tabouli also suggested (eyeing a suspiciously rubicund fish through the porthole of her submarine as she did so) that all of the textual implications that Neville may be under some form of artificial memory repression likely amount to nothing more than one of JKR's infamous acts of authorial misdirection. Okay. My take on this. Personally, I am perfectly willing to concede that there may be misdirection going on here. As I've said before, I'm not totally sold on the whole Memory Charm thing myself. I think, though, that if there is a red herring swimming around in this aquarium, then it is far more likely to be darting around somewhere in the vicinity of the notion that Neville witnessed his parents' torture at *all.* I am far more willing to abandon MC'd Neville altogether than to buy into the notion that Neville both witnessed something so unspeakably horrible as a child *and* that he can remember it clearly. This is because, to my mind, there is far too much evidence in the text to suggest that Neville is *not,* in fact, ordinarily very much troubled by traumatic remembrance. Some of this "evidence" is admittedly highly subjective. For me, much of it boils down to the fact that I just don't find Neville's everyday demeanor at all believable as that of a child haunted by some terrible and traumatic memory. Neville is timid and pessimistic, true, and he is even at times gloomy. But his behavior still doesn't strike me as at all what I would expect from someone who had been traumatized in as direct and straightforward a fashion as Tabouli has suggested. Of course, this comes down to interpretation of characterization, which is always a highly personal matter. Far less vague and subjective, though, is the evidence of the Egg from the Second Task. As Rohit the ColumbiaTexan has pointed out, when Neville first hears the screechy mermaid singing emerging from Harry's egg, he reacts as follows: > "It was someone being tortured," said Neville, who had gone > very white and spilled sausage rolls all over the floor. > "You're going to have to fight the Cruciatus Curse!" Now, this response strikes me as quite clearly phobic, rather than truly informed. For one thing, Seamus says that it sounds to *him* like a banshee, which we already know from the boggart scene in PoA is his own particular phobia. For another, from the way that the noise is described ("a loud and screechy wailing. . . . The nearest thing to it Harry had ever heard was the ghost orchestra at Nearly Headless Nick's deathday party, who had all been playing the musical saw"), I don't believe for a second that it really sounds in the least bit like a human being in agony. Everyone in the Gryffindor common room when Harry opens the egg responds to the noise in a negative fashion, but _no one_ other than Neville himself seems to think that it sounds anything like a person in pain. If Neville could really remember having witnessed his parents being tortured, then would he really have identified that noise as sounding anything like it? I don't believe that he would. And then there's also the evidence to which both Debbie and Finwitch alluded: Neville's behavior when confronted by the Dementor on the train at the beginning of PoA. Debbie wrote: > 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. If not even more so! Yes, I agree. Harry, forced to recall the sound of his mother pleading for his life, actually *faints.* Neville, on the other hand, is merely left pale and shaken. He does not even react as strongly as Ginny, who we are told was "looking nearly as bad as Harry felt." Debbie: > 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. Yeah, Neville and Ginny's injection into that scene has always come across that way to me as well: as a quite deliberate (and even somewhat clumsy) authorial ploy. Either we are meant to understand from it that for some reason Harry is actually *more* delicate than either Neville or Ginny when it comes to nasty old memories, or we are meant to deduce that while both Neville and Ginny are indeed more vulnerable to the Dementors than either Ron or Hermione, neither of them has a memory of anything nearly as dreadful as having witnessed ones own mother's murder. The former idea is certainly intriguing, in a totally subversive sort of way, but I also find it utterly unconvincing, so I think that I'm forced to the latter conclusion. Neville and Ginny are there to indicate to the reader that they do not have memories nearly as dire as Harry's. Or that they are simply incapable of *accessing* them. In Ginny's case, we already know both that she has had some pretty nasty experiences and that she suffers from some form of memory suppression. She has certainly witnessed horrors -- she's even perpetrated a couple of them -- but in CoS, it is established that she cannot remember having done so. She only comes to suspect that she might have been responsible for killing Hagrid's roosters due to the circumstantial evidence, and Riddle makes mention of her concern about her own amnesia. From her reaction to the Dementor on the train, however, it would seem that Ginny certainly does remember *something,* even if only the power of the Dementors suffices to dredge it up. So the question then becomes: is Neville in the same situation as Ginny, or is he in the position of someone who has never truly witnessed anything very terrible at all? If the former, then I think that we need to accept that Neville must suffer from some type of memory suppression similar to, but even stronger than, that which we already know has affected Ginny. Would a memory charm qualify? Quite recently, Raven wrote: > I also can't help wondering whether exposure to a dementor wouldn't > bring out the memory of such trauma even if a person was under the > influence of a regular memory charm. I don't know whether there's > anything in canon to support that idea, but I think it's an > interesting question. It's a *very* interesting question, I agree, and particularly in the context of this discussion. Do Dementors trump memory charms? Canon supplies no answer to that question. Canon does, however, suggest that breaking a memory charm involves some pretty serious mistreatment. Bertha Jorkins is described as "damaged beyond repair" by the time that Voldemort and Wormtail get done with her. The Dementors are certainly bad news, but exposure to them doesn't wreak quite that degree of damage -- or not, at any rate, nearly that *quickly.* So I'd say that it's certainly possible that a memory charm might be able to stand up against the power of the Dementors. And Neville is, after all, only exposed to the Dementor on the train for a very short period of time. If we choose to reject the notion that memory charms can resist Dementor-Dredge, on the other hand, then Neville's comparatively mild reaction to the Dementor on the train leads us inexorably to the conclusion that he simply doesn't have anything very terrible lurking in his memory at all -- in short, that *no* variant of Memory Charm'd Neville can be reconciled with canon. Okay. Time to come clean here. You know, as much as it pains my featherboas to admit this, it really does seem quite likely to me that Neville was never anywhere near his parents when they were attacked, and that whatever trauma he has suffered derives solely from having grown up with the knowledge of what was done to them, both the anecdotal knowledge of the story itself, and the first-hand knowledge of seeing for himself the living evidence of just how damaging such abuse can be. It's kind of boring. It doesn't offer nearly as much in the way of thematic complexity. It definitely lacks Bang. But there's just no getting around the fact that it certainly is *plausible.* And I have this funny feeling that Faith herself probably favors this reading. Its big drawback, though, is that it fails to account for all of the foreshadowing and emphasis that both memory charms and memory suppression have been given over the course of the past four volumes. As Cindy said: > 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. . . . Memory charms are getting more > foreshadowing throughout the series than polyjuice potion, animagi > and the Grim ever did. Yeah, they're just all *over* the place, aren't they? So if Neville doesn't really have one, then I still think that *somebody* had better sooner or later, because the focus on memory magics has been given far too much build-up, IMO, to be nothing but a red herring. Many of these same objections also apply to our next variant on Memory Charm'd Neville: the "Psychological Repression" theory. ********************************************************************* --The Psychological Repression Theory-- (Otherwise known as: "Magic? We don't need no stinking magic!") Neville did it to himself. But it wasn't a Memory Charm, nor any other sort of magic. Nope, it was just good old-fashioned psychological repression, that's all, an unconscious block that has since expanded to affect his memory in the wider sense. ------------------------------ This one is a very close relative of the "No Suppressed Memory At All" Theory, and in fact, I'm not altogether certain whether it might not sum up Tabouli's real position much better than the position that I just ascribed to her did. Chynarose wrote, in support of this reading: > 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. . . . 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 conscious mind to prevent this; kind of > a mini Fudge if you will. The comparison of Neville to Fudge is an interesting one. Both Pippin and Finwitch, proponents of the closely related "Spontaneous Magic Theory," also drew parallels between Neville and Fudge. The connection certainly is strongly encouraged by name association, isn't it? Neville --> Neville Chamberlain --> Archetypical Twentieth-Century Head-in-the-sand Political Appeaser --> Cornelius Fudge. And of course, the parallel makes a great deal of sense on the thematic level as well. This is a cluster of theories that all rest on the notion of *willful* forgetfulness, on the deliberate (if not necessarily fully conscious) refusal to face up to an unpleasant truth. This is certainly thematically compelling, and it also appeals on the grounds of emotional realism. It does strike me, though, that it might not mesh very well with the pattern that JKR has maintained throughout the books of consistently externalizing and literalizing emotional repression in the form of magical creatures or devices. The Tough and Steely Talon DG (with whom I deeply regret having missed my opportunity to wrangle over Shrieking Shack, as I suspect that he would have proved a far worthier opponent than I really deserve) wrote: > 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. Yes, I agree. While I certainly believe that on the thematic and symbolic level, Neville's poor memory is best viewed as in some sense his own doing, I don't know if I think that the psychological approach would fit in very well with the style of the rest of the series. In the HP books, it seems to me, JKR almost always chooses to represent emotional repression by externalizing it. Much like the denizens of Theory Bay, she prefers to literalize her metaphors. :) When JKR wants to show us the seductive peril that dwelling on a fantasy version of ones lost family can represent to an orphan like Harry, for example, she doesn't merely show him engaging in that activity; instead, she externalizes its temptation as the Mirror of Erised. The depressive dangers of dwelling on the past are personified by the Dementors. The mystical power of sacrificial parental devotion confers not a symbolic but an *actual* physical protection upon Harry, rendering him for a time quite literally untouchable by evil. There really is a monster lying in wait down there in the Chamber of Secrets: it is not merely a myth which serves to symbolize the ugly strain of racism underlying wizarding culture; it is instead all too physically real. Both the Pensieve and Riddle's Diary are real magical items, not mere metaphors. And so on. So while I certainly agree that it is very fruitful to view Neville's memory problems as a representation of psychological repression, I feel that if indeed it does turn out to be the case that his memory problems are tied to a specific traumatic event in his past, then JKR will almost certainly provide us with an external -- and very likely magical -- explanation for it. ********************************************************************* --The Spontaneous Magic Theory-- (Otherwise known as: The "Tommy" Theory) Neville did it to himself, with powerful spontaneous magic of the sort that wizarding children in the Potterverse often display before they begin their formal training. While Neville did indeed succeed in suppressing his traumatic memory, he also caused a great deal of damage to his overall capacity for concentration and memory retention. ------------------------------ Finwitch has made a very strong case for this reading. She wrote: > 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. She then went on to cite both the boy with the slug at the QWC and Harry's own experiences as evidence that even very young children are capable of achieving quite powerful and specific effects, even without the benefit of either a wand or a known incantation: > Little Kevin (about Neville's age) - did a charm that enlarged the > slug - not incantation, only Daddy's wand. . . . .The Magic Harry > did without knowing - well, it is all pretty specific: Jump onto > school roof, turn teacher's hair blue... Pippin agreed, and pointed out that this approach offers rich thematic possibilities as well: > 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. Porphyria also adopted this approach in her "Memory Charm Most Foul" speculation. Yes. I really like this one. I find it very appealing indeed, as it manages to retain all of the thematic relevance of the Psychological Repression Theory, while still conforming to JKR's preference for literalizing her metaphors. It also ties in quite nicely with my belief that Neville's actual magical power is, if anything, too *strong,* and that his difficulties lie in his inability to control it. Certainly if Neville's memory problems derive from an act of spontaneous magic that he himself performed at the age of two or so, then that *would* explain why it seems like such a botched effort. Not only was he far too young to have the slightest idea how to do such a thing properly, but he is also *Neville.* Botching a memory spell on himself is, I'm afraid, an utterly characteristic thing for Neville to do. Finwitch wrote: > 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. Indeed. Really, it's just the sort of thing that *would* happen to Neville, isn't it? I love the boy dearly, but there's just no getting around the fact that he's a terrible bungler. He's unlucky. And he's accident-prone. The Spontaneous Magic Theory is also appealing because it so neatly side-steps many of the questions that other memory charm theories must struggle to contend with. As Pippin wrote: > 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? That it does. Really, the only drawback that I can see to the Spontaneous Magic Theory is the one that Amanda touched on here: > I'm iffy about this, because Neville's behavior is too typical of > people who actually have the real Memory Charm cast on them. Mmmmm. Well, yes. If Neville's memory problems derive from an act of spontaneous magic, rather than from a formalized memory charm, then that *does* rather weaken all of those nifty canonical arguments in support of the existence of Neville's memory charm in the first place, doesn't it? Similarities between Neville's behavior after DADA class and Mr. Roberts' behavior at the QWC, for example, seem far less compelling as evidence for the memory charm speculation as a whole if we propose that what afflicts Neville isn't really a formal memory charm at all. I'm not too concerned, though. As Finwitch pointed out, Kevin's enlargement of the slug at the QWC is cast without any incantation at all, and yet it seems virtually identical in effect to the Engorgement charm that Crouch Jr. cast on the spiders in DADA class. If the effects of spontaneous magic can so closely mimic the effects of formal spells, then I have no difficulty believing that the negative side-effects of botched versions of both types of magic would also share strong similarities. So this one gets a thumbs-up from me. It also finishes off the list of the variants on MC'd Neville that reject the premise that he is operating under the influence of a formalized spell. From here, we move on to the classic... ********************************************************************* --The Well-Intended Memory Charm Theory-- (Otherwise known as: Classic Memory Charm; Humanitarian Memory Charm; The "For Your Own Good" Theory; The Soft, Sappy, Well-Meant, Anti- Traumatic Memory Charm.) A well-meaning Ministry Official, St. Mungo's medic, or family member placed Neville under a memory charm to spare him the emotional trauma of having witnessed his parents' torture. Alas, either because the memory in question was so very traumatic or because the caster of the charm blundered big-time, the spell caused permanent damage to Neville's memory. ------------------------------ This is the oldest, the most popular, and the most wide-spread of all memory charm speculations, although it's come under a lot of attack lately, particularly by those who think it just a wee bit "ewww." People like Eileen, for example, who called it: > The soft, sappy, well meant, anti-traumatic Memory Charm I was really quite surprised that so few people leapt to the classic memory charm's defense over the course of the Still Life thread, as I had always believed it to be by far the most popular of these theories. Perhaps it has now gone out of vogue? Become unfashionable? Who can say? Even those people who did make a case for this one on the thread chose to focus their efforts chiefly on the question of "Whodunnit?" and many of them added some novel twist, as well. Dogberry, for example, did indeed point the finger at the Usual Suspect, dear old Gran. He also, however, suggested a new twist on the usual motive of "for his own good:" > Just a bit of a twist from me here, what if Gran put the 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. Hmmm. Well, judging from Neville's feeling that Gran would have wanted him to try to compete in the Triwizard Tournament, I have kind of an idea that fame (and even a certain degree of bigheadedness) is *precisely* the kind of thing that "upholding the family honor" entails. I do rather like the idea that the motive might have been to protect Neville from the trauma of questioning, rather than from the trauma of witnessing his parent's torture, though. For one thing, it implies some truly dreadful things about the Ministry's reputation, which in turn would fit in quite well with Sirius' claims about Crouch's regime. If even the family of a victimized Auror didn't want their son questioned by the Ministry -- and was even willing to risk sacrificing the possibility of apprehending the culprits in order to protect him from this fate -- then what does that say about the degree of trust accorded to the legal authorities at that particular moment in time? If Those In The Know felt that way, then it's hardly surprising that the general wizarding populace turned on Crouch not too long afterwards, no? Jake Storm also sent the Classic Memory Charm spinning off in an unusual direction by retaining its usual humanitarian motive, but selecting instead an unusual culprit: Snape. Snape, of course, is a very popular suspect within the context of many *other* memory charm variants -- as Jake pointed out, making Snape the one responsible for Neville's poor academic performance in the first place offers an almost irresistably appealing psychological explanation for his treatment of Neville in his Potions Class -- but usually when Snape gets fingered, it is in the context of a "Double-Agent Protection Program" or a "Marooned At the Court Hearing" scenario, or even as part of a "Severus Snape Is Ever So Evil" speculation. Our dear Severus is very rarely ascribed the purely generous motive that Jake bestowed on him here: > 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. Awww. That Snape! He's just a regular old softie deep down inside, isn't he? I am...well, I'm touched, Jake. Truly and deeply touched. I would never dare to give someone named "Jake Storm" his very own sprig of Bleeding Heart, but might I offer instead a Cute Kitten? Take good care of her, Jake, okay? And, uh, look. Don't take her out water-skiing with you or anything like that, all right? Because this kitten really doesn't float very well, I'm afraid. Sinks like a stone, she does. Oh, hey, you know what? If Snape really did want to protect dear little Neville from trauma, couldn't that have been because he was secretly in love with Neville's Mum? I mean, if you think about it... No. No, all right. Memory Charm Specs. We're talking about *Memory Charm Specs* here. C'mon, Elkins. Focus. Concentrate. Stay. On. Target. Yes, well. Where were we again? Ah, yes. The Good Old-Fashioned Well-Meant Anti-Traumatic Memory Charm. The one that might be the thing interfering with Neville's powers of, um, concentration and, er, focus, and his ability to...well, to remember what he's supposed to be doing and to stay on target. Right. That one. Tabouli, a vocal opponent of the Classic Memory Charm Theory, argued against it on the grounds that she does not view memory charms as working in a way that it would make it at all sensible for Neville to have been given one. Memory charms as we have seen them in canon, she says, are used for discrete events, and their purpose is to convince the recipient that the event in question never happened at all. For Neville, who knows full well that the event in question happened, and for whom reminders of the event are a constant part of his upbringing, a memory charm would simply not be applicable. Tabouli: > 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. I don't know if I agree. The event itself is obviously inextricably connected with the rest of Neville's life, but that doesn't mean that the specific trauma of having served as eye-witness to it could not have been excised. As Tabouli herself 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. Precisely. As I understand the basic premise of the well-meant memory charm theory, this was just the intent: not to hide the knowledge of what had occurred from Neville altogether, but instead to reduce the degree of acute trauma that his having actually witnessed the event might have caused. Tabouli also wondered why on earth Neville's family would take him to visit his parents all the time, if they wanted him to forget the event. Tabouli: > 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? Well, there's a very big difference between traumatic *knowledge* and traumatic *experience,* don't you think? Knowing that your parents were tortured into a state of madness and being taken to visit them from time to time may be a bit traumatic, especially for a very young child, but it's hardly in the same category as actually having seen it happen to them. It also serves a useful function, in a way that having a specific memory of the event does not. Visiting and caring for ones incapacitated relatives may not be much fun, but it's hardly *gratuitous.* Not only may Neville's visits be of some comfort to his parents (even if they don't really remember who he is), but they are also a matter of filial duty, which serves an important social function. Most people would like to believe that even if they were rendered catatonic by some dire catastrophe, their friends and loved ones would continue to care for them and to visit them from time to time. And naturally, from Neville's perspective, it is infinitely better to know what really happened to your parents than *not* to know -- or even worse, to know that they are utterly mad, but to have no idea how they got that way. So I don't really find it at all difficult to believe that a reasonably rational and well-intentioned adult might have thought it a good idea to remove Neville's memory of the actual event, even knowing that he was still going to go through life being aware of what had occurred. >From here on out, though, I'm going to have to resign my defense of this theory and leave it to somebody else, as far too many people -- DG, Eileen, Porphyria, Debbie -- chose to frame their objections by snatching that "The Wizarding World Has A Warrior Culture" drum that I'm always beating on right out of my hands and then thrashing me savagely about the head and shoulders with it. Talon DG: > 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. Erm. No. No, I guess it really *doesn't* seem very much in character for the wizarding world, does it? Although... Porphyria: > 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? Well, yes. Yes, he *is.* But... Debbie: > 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?) I...um. Um. I, uh, think that you need to talk to Eileen about getting one of those Viking helmets. See, I don't know from Vikings. I only know from Romans. But listen, guys, about that classic memory charm notion? I really do think that... Eileen (delivering the coup de grace): > But, this wouldn't happen in a warrior culture, would it? Let's > reimagine the story in Livian Rome. . . .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. All right! All right! Uncle! Mercy! I yield! I am powerless in the face of Livian parallels, and the entire notion of the family "Lombottomi" weakens the last of my sinews. The Classic Memory Charm is a total dog, all right? Okay? Forget the fact that it's got the weight of tradition and history on its side! Forget the fact that it's practically older than God Himself! It's a complete loser! Anything you like! Just. Please. Stop. I don't believe it. I do not believe it. Hoist. Hoist by my own pet reading. Impaled, as it were, on my very own sword. O, the irony. ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> <>(("> Well, would you just look at the time! Let's take a break now, okay? I could really use a cigarette. A couple of cigarettes. Lots of cigarettes. And a stiff drink. Not to mention some bandages. Be back in around forty minutes or so, and we'll move on into the realms of the somewhat greyer-motived variations on MC'd Neville: The Wizarding Witness Protection Program, The "Wizards In Black" Theory, the "Hidden Source" Theory, and the Ever So Alluring (if also Ever So Wobbly) Reverse Memory Charm. -- Elkins For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% 20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From skelkins at attbi.com Fri May 17 01:22:18 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 01:22:18 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Memory Charm Symposium (2 of 3) (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38813 Welcome back. This second batch of variants on the Memory Charm Theory moves away from the idea that Neville's memory was suppressed for psychological or purely humanitarian reasons. Instead, these theories ascribe far more pragmatic (if still generally good-intentioned) motives to the perpetrators of the proposed memory charm. We're delving into some darker territory here, to be sure, and the motives get greyer and greyer the deeper in we go. With luck, this should mean that by the time we get to the truly Dark and nasty variations on MC'd Neville, we should all be thoroughly inured. In this segment of our symposium, we'll be looking at the Wizarding Witness Protection Program, The "Wizards In Black" Theory, The "Hidden Source" Theory, and the Reverse Memory Charm, or MATCHINGARMCHAIR. ********************************************************************* --The Wizarding Witness Protection Program-- Neville was given a Memory Charm by well-meaning Ministry officials, in order to protect him from those (still-at-large Death Eaters, for example) who might otherwise target him to prevent him from revealing something incriminating about them. --------------------- A number of people have suggested this theory in the past, although none of them stepped forward on the Still Life thread. The main problem that I have with this theory is that nobody has ever been able to explain it to me in a way that enables me to understand the motive. I just don't get it. At all. I mean, if Neville had actually known something useful, then wouldn't the Ministry have heard his testimony *before* they gave him a Memory Charm? But in that case, the damage would already have been done, right? And if Neville's testimony was insufficient to put away some still-at-large culprit the first time around, then why would said culprit even bother to target him thereafter? The only possible reason to do so would be revenge -- or possibly pure malice. But how would a memory charm serve to protect Neville from someone out for revenge, or from someone acting out of murderous spite? Why would such a person *care* what the kid could or could not remember? It's not as if Neville's name has been changed, or he's been given a new identity, or anything like that. It's not even as if the fact that he was given a Memory Charm has been widely publicized. On the contrary, it seems to be a deep dark secret. So how... Oh, well. You get the idea, I trust. No matter how I try to approach this one, I just can't seem to work it so that it makes any sense to me. Maybe one of its adherents can explain it to me? Because I feel as if I'm quite likely missing something when it comes to this theory. I do think that the underlying premise here -- that Neville was placed under a memory charm for somebody's *physical* (rather than emotional) protection -- is indeed very compelling. For now, though, it works a whole lot better for me as it is used in Cover-Up at the Ministry, or any of the variants on DEPRECIATION, or in Memory Charm Most Foul. Or, for that matter, in our next theory... ********************************************************************* --The "Wizards In Black" Theory-- (Includes such variants as: The Double Agent Protection Program; Fifth Man; The Rescue Scenario; and Fourth Man With Deep Undercover.) Neville was given a Memory Charm in order to prevent him from revealing top-secret and strategically vital information about someone or something related to the assault on his parents. Unlike "Depreciation" or "Cover-Up at the Ministry," however, the culprit in this case is not a Death Eater or any other garden variety evil-doer, but instead someone working for the forces of good, albeit in a creepy, secretive, "never let the right hand know what the left hand is doing," black-budgety sort of way. --------------------- This theory is particularly appealing to paranoids and fans of espionage plotlines. Probably its most common manifestation is the "Double Agent Protection Program" version, in which Neville's Memory Charm was cast on him to preserve the cover of some spook or another. Of course, if Neville was given a Memory Charm in order to protect the identity of somebody working deep undercover within the DE organization, then we all know who that somebody must have been, right? That's right! It was... What? WHAT? *What* did you all just say? You said *Snape?* You think that it was Snape? Oh, please. You're joking, right? Surely you must be joking. You're all just having me on here. You can't honestly believe that, can you? Come on, people. Let's be *serious* here for just a minute, okay? You all know perfectly well that Snape is hardly an important enough character to be the person that Neville's Memory Charm was cast to protect. But we all know who really *is* important enough to fulfill such a plot function, don't we? Sure we do! Who do we all *know* to be the Most Important Character In Canon? Who do we all *know* JKR has all lined up to serve as the big surprise hero of Book Five? Who do we all know absolutely *must* have been the real mole in the Longbottom Affair, who is in fact *still* working for the Ministry in a very active role, whose true allegiance has been kept secret from even Dumbledore himself? Who must it be whose work is so absolutely vital to the security of the entire Wizarding World that the Ministry would go to any lengths to protect him from exposure? Oh, for heaven's... It was AVERY, you fools! Avery! Sheesh. What's wrong with you tonight? Of *course* it had to have been Avery! Who else could it have been? It was Unspeakable Fourth Man, that's who it was! Unspeakable Fourth Man. Department-of-Mysteries Fourth Man. Tough- As-Nails Fourth Man. Avery-Means-King-of-the-Elves Fourth Man. So- Deep-Undercover-That-At-First-Glance-The-Bed-Looks-Completely- Unoccupied Fourth Man. Fourth Man who eats men like Mad Eye for breakfast, out-Oscars even young Barty Crouch, and makes Snape's purported talent for snooping about look just plain pathetic. Fourth Man who thinks nothing -- *nothing,* I tell you! -- of enduring years of imprisonment in Azkaban, over a decade of suspicion and mistrust from the rest of the law-abiding wizarding world, the contempt and scorn of other Death Eaters, and even the reincorporated Voldemort's very best Cruciatus, if that's what it will take to allow him to maintain his cover as grovelling, hysterical, in-over-his-head SYCOPHANTSish Fourth Man so that he may continue his heroic and loyal service to... What? What's that you say? You *still* think that the Undercover Agent must have been Snape? Really? Still? Oh all *right.* I guess we can talk about that possibility, if you guys absolutely insist. But I'm warning you right now -- Fourth Man With Deep Undercover is actually a whole lot more canonically defensible, in the long run. By far the most popular interpretation of this version of the Memory Charm speculation is that the purpose of Neville's memory charm was to protect Snape, who was somehow involved in the Longbottom Incident in his role as Dumbledore's agent. Talon DG suggested that Snape might in fact have been a *Fifth* Man: > 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? Fifth Man Snape, eh? Well, it's certainly possible. I do see a big problem with the timeline, though. Snape's role as undercover agent was discussed openly at Karkaroff's hearing, which predated the attack on the Longbottoms. It seems highly unlikely to me that Snape was still in active service at that point in time, or that he would have been able to return to active service after his role had become so widely known. There were about two hundred people seated on the tribunal when Dumbledore pronounced Snape's status as a mole, and I find it very difficult to believe that Dumbledore was so certain that each and every one of those two hundred people could be trusted that he would have first blown Snape's cover to them, and then sent him right back out to work. Certainly *I* wouldn't have been too pleased about that, if I had been Snape. The other big problem that I see here is that Dumbledore himself seems so very doubtful about Crouch Jr's guilt when he discusses the affair with Harry in Chapter 30 of GoF, and that he so strongly implies that the only evidence against the Pensieve defendants was the highly dubious testimony of the Longbottoms themselves: "'Unfortunately, the Longbottoms' evidence was -- given their condition -- none too reliable.' 'Then Mr. Crouch's son might not have been involved?' said Harry slowly. Dumbldore shook his head. 'As to that, I have no idea.'" I find this exchange very difficult to reconcile with a scenario in which Snape's testimony was in fact what put the Pensieve defendents away. Given that Harry has learned of Snape's undercover role only minutes previous to this conversation, I just can't imagine why Dumbledore would feel the need to be so exceptionally duplicitous with him here. It also just doesn't jibe with his character for me. As I read him, Dumbledore is indeed often evasive, but he is never duplicitous in quite that outright a manner. Although Fifth Man Snape is so hard to reconcile with canon, though, the suggestion that Neville's memory charm must exist to protect Snape in some fashion really does have teeth, following up as it does on canon's strong suggestion that there must exist *some* important connection or relationship between Neville and Snape. Pippin wrote: > 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. Finwitch agreed, even abandoning her usual hard-line anti-Snape stance just long enough to concede the possibility that Snape might have been present for the Longbottoms' torture as an agent of good: > 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. . . .Perhaps Snape was trying to save > the Longbottoms? Perhaps he was at that. After all... After all, since as we all know, Snape is secretly and hopelessly in love with Neville's mother, and has been ever since their schooldays together at Hogwarts, it makes perfect *sense* that...OW! Hey! Come on! Quit it! *Okay!* All *right!* Sheesh. Boy. Tough crowd. Okay. Well, staying on target then, this brings us to the "Rescue Scenario" version of "Wizards In Black," in which Snape was indeed present at the scene of the attack on the Longbottoms, but found himself incapable of helping anyone but toddler Neville, whom he rescued from the scene and possibly saved from suffering his parents' fate. This speculation appeals on so many different levels. First, it provides a highly convincing explanation for Neville's fear of Snape. If both Snape and Neville were present for the attack on the Longbottoms, and if Neville's memory blockage is wearing off or degrading in some fashion, then he could well retain some trace memory of Snape which associates him with the traumatic event, thus leading to Neville's identification of Snape as his "worst fear." Second, the rescue scenario maintains, with beautifully cruel irony, the canonically-established pattern of Snape's actions and motivations being misinterpreted in the worst possible way by others. The rescue scenario also avoids some (although by no means all) of the pitfalls of "Fifth Man." If Snape was for some reason unable to save any of the Longbottoms but Neville, then it seems equally possible that he was also unable to learn the identities of the culprits. The rescue scenario still doesn't explain, however, why Snape's role in the affair should have been believed to be so very sensitive that it would warrant wiping Neville's memory of the event, especially since at the time, Snape's role hardly seems to have been a terribly carefully-guarded secret. In message #36922 Pippin, while standing back and preparing to be pelted with FEATHERBOAs, put forward a "psychological repression" version of the rescue scenario in which Snape was himself responsible for setting up Frank Longbottom, as a part of an entrapment scenario gone horribly awry. That in and of itself warrants a featherboa as far as I'm concerned, but she also threw in not one, but *two* bloody ambushes, as well as much betrayal among old school chums. *And* use of the word "gibbering." So... Hmmmm. Well, since I know how much you like that whole "dressing in black" thing, Pippin, how about this one? I made it from these two big black birds that I ran into the other day. It was the weirdest thing, actually: one of them kept saying "wei...wei...wei..." but every time I tried to *tell* it why, it just wouldn't listen to me. And then the other one started croaking "mr-no...mr-no...mr-no..." which just made no sense to me at *all.* I mean, I had no *idea* what that stupid bird was nattering on about, and I couldn't find Eileen or anyone else with one of those Viking helmets to translate for me. So I figured that I'd best just wring both their necks and have done with it. Oh, well. It couldn't have been anything all that important, right? After all, neither of them put up much of a fight. So here you go, Pippin! Enjoy! Okay. So what's next? Oh, that's right. We were just talking about ravens, weren't we? That must mean that the next one up is... ********************************************************************* --The "Hidden Source" Theory-- (Otherwise known as: "Neville As Raven") Neville's father, or perhaps both of his parents, really *were* in possession of some crucial information regarding Voldemort, possibly even knowledge of the means by which he could be utterly defeated. Either Neville stumbled across this knowledge by chance, or he had it magically hidden away in his mind when his parents realized that they were likely to come under attack. In either case, his parents then gave him the Memory Charm themselves, in order to keep hidden the vital information that he carries. --------------------- This marriage of "Wizards In Black" and "Memory Charm Most Foul," proposed by Naama, has the undeniable advantage that it avoids all of the problems inherent in the idea that Neville was witness to the assault on his parents, while still allowing him to possess a highly plot-relevant memory charm. It also has a certain "worm-turning" appeal, suggesting as it does that whatever secret knowledge Neville carries hidden deep within his mind will likely be absolutely vital to Voldemort's eventual defeat. Naama: > 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? And so, somewhere in Book Seven, Neville will help to save the day! Mm. Well, there is a certain pleasure to be found in that notion, to be sure, as well as in the incongruity of Neville in the role as the repository of secret knowledge. And certainly I agree with Naama that if Neville has a memory charm, then there is surely *something* important hidden away by it. Otherwise there would seem little point, from the authorial perspective, of introducing such a plotline in the first place. I'm having a lot of problems with the details of the Hidden Source Theory, though. I almost wish that I weren't, as I find the ironic juxtaposition, if I may steal Tabouli's pet phrase, to be so very delightful. Take this, for example: Naama: > Neville, the Raven (whatsitsname?), carrier of secret information, > the unexpected source, etc. Now, how can I bring myself to argue with the idea of Neville-as- Raven? It's...well, it's almost like putting a single pink flamingo right in the middle of a gloomy old Gothic Cathedral, isn't it? I mean, it's just plain beautiful. But it does make the Longbottoms themselves seem rather *ruthless,* don't you think? To place their only son at such a terrible risk? Not that I really mind Ruthless!Frank -- in my more perverse moods, I even enjoy a little bit of Ever So Evil Frank -- but I do find myself struggling with the idea that even Ruthless!Frank would have chosen his own son and heir to serve such a role. Even leaving aside the emotional issues involved, couldn't he have found some more *secure* place to hide away the secret knowledge than in his own son's mind? If the DEs knew that such a spell was possible, then surely that would be one of the very first places they would think to look once they realized that Frank himself no longer possessed the information they sought, wouldn't it? I also find myself wondering why, if the Longbottoms had indeed received advance warning that they might become DE targets, they couldn't have protected themselves a bit better. There's something almost embarrassing about the notion of Frank Longbottom, the Ruthless Auror Who Sees Which Way the Wind Is Blowing, *still* managing to get himself brought down by that pathetic group of losers that we saw in the Pensieve scene. Unless, that is, we're proposing that the Longbottoms had some sort of martyr complex? My biggest problem with this theory, though, is that I'm finding it very hard to imagine how Frank Longbottom could have managed not to give the game away himself, seeing as both he and his wife were apparently tortured half to death with the express purpose of persuading him to talk. Naama suggested, as a way around this problem: > Maybe they also put themselves under a Lunatic charm, i.e., a charm > hat turns them insane the minute they are about to divulge the > secret? Wow. That would certainly have been sporting of them. Very heroic indeed. True, that certainly would fix the hole. And it would also clean up the whole "Oh, please! People don't *really* go insane like that!" objection to the entire Longbottom plotline. But I just don't know about that Lunatic Charm idea. We've never heard of anything like a Lunatic Charm in canon, have we? I'm very much afraid that we might be looking at a yellow flag violation if we start venturing down *that* path. Tabouli wrote: > 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. No, neither am I, and I don't think that JKR is either. The HP books are written in a fairly heroic idiom, but they're not written in *that* heroic an idiom. And besides, we already know that memory charms can be broken. In fact, it has been very strongly implied that they are specifically broken by means of torture. The Ministry must be aware of this, so I very much doubt that they would Obliviate their Aurors as a means of granting them immunity to interrogation: they would surely be aware that that it just wouldn't work. Nor do I find it believable that there is any more effective or more permanent means of removing information from the human mind known to the wizarding world than the Memory Charm. If there were such a method, then the Ministry would likely be using it, rather than Obliviate, on the muggle population. Even if it were so dangerous that even the Ministry would balk at its use, I doubt that Gilderoy Lockhart would have been so fastidious. And even if it were too tricky for Lockhart to have managed, Crouch Sr. surely could have handled it, and I don't believe for a second that ends-over-means- prone Crouch, who was willing to cast an Unforgiveable Curse on his illegally-sprung-from-Azkaban son, wouldn't have used it on Bertha Jorkins. So I feel fairly well-convinced that the Memory Charm is in fact the closest thing that the wizarding world has yet found to a permanent knowledge removal spell -- and a memory charm wouldn't have sufficed to keep the Longbottoms' information hidden from their assailants. So all in all, I feel fairly well convinced that poor Frank Longbottom really didn't know a thing. I do rather like the idea that the Lestranges et al might have *thought* that Frank was under a memory charm, though. It offers a far more convincing explanation than pure sadism for the fact that they hung around Crucioing the couple (and thus increasing their risk of getting caught) long past the point at which it must have become clear to anyone with the slightest modicum of sense that neither of the Longbottoms knew anything useful. It also has some canonical support in that Voldemort's description of the post-memory-charm- cracked Bertha Jorkins ("mind and body both damaged beyond repair") would seem an equally apt description of two people who have been hospitalized for thirteen years to date with apparently no noticeable improvement in their condition. Ah. But speaking of those yellow flag violations, we now come at last to... ********************************************************************* --The Reverse Memory Charm Theory-- (Otherwise known as: M.A.T.C.H.I.N.G.A.R.M.C.H.A.I.R. ["Marooned At The Court Hearing, Ill-fated Neville Got A Reverse Memory Charm, Hatching Amnesia-Inducing Results"]) Neville is indeed the victim of a memory spell, but it is not one designed to *suppress* his memories at all. Rather, he was exposed to some form of magical memory-enhancement, probably by ministry officials hoping to get some leads on the identities of the Longbottoms' attackers. The end result of this has been that Neville now helplessly relives the memory of having witnessed his parents' torture, particularly whenever he is under stress, thus rendering him incapable of concentrating on other matters. --------------------- Gulplum, apparently unaware of the fact that he was about to be offered a seat in the Comfy Chair, made a case for this one: > 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. There you go, Gulplum. Have a seat. MATCHINGARMCHAIR, the "Reverse Memory Charm" Theory, is definitely appealing in that it caters to all of our worst suspicions about the MOM. By suggesting that Neville is tormented on a near-constant basis by the sound of his parents screaming in agony, it also pleases the anti-sap brigade. There is not a single ewwwwy bit of sappiness to be found in the Reverse Memory Charm theory. It is not in the least bit sappy. It isn't even *nice.* It is a nasty brutal cynical little speculation, capable of corrupting even the ordinarily peaceable Tabouli into coming up with things like this gruesome marriage of MATCHING ARMCHAIR and DEPRECIATION, in which poor Neville's problems actually derive from someone in Law Enforcement having *broken* a Memory Charm which had been placed on him by one of the perps: Tabouli: > 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...) An armchair? Oh, you're looking at far worse than that, hon. I mean, Tortured Toddler Neville? Tortured by the *Ministry* Toddler Neville, no less? Mmmmmm. Actually? Maybe later. When you least expect it, Tabouli. When you least expect it. Reverse Memory Charm also offers a strong possibility that one or two -- or even all -- of the Pensieve defendents might actually have been innocent. After all, as Nuria wrote quite recently: > However, given that he was indeed a toddler when his parents were > crucio'd, it is more likely a Reverse Memory Charm had been used on > him (this is what we Muggles call Regressive Hypnosis!) Eeeee-yup. Indeed it is. And we all know how very reliable testimony based on Regressive Hypnosis is, right? Yeah. Small wonder that Dumbledore had his doubts. Perhaps the most appealing thing of all about the Reverse Memory Charm, though, is its success in avoiding all of those pesky motivational difficulties that plague so many other memory charm theories. We may have some problems figuring out why Neville might have been given a Memory Charm, but it's fairly obvious why someone might have given him a *Reverse* Memory Charm. To help the Ministry identify the Longbottoms' attackers, of course! But Would the Department of Law Enforcement really stoop that low? Even knowing what it might do to the poor boy's mind? Are you kidding me? Under Crouch's reign? Of *course* it would! Gulplum even offered up a perfectly beautiful suggestion as to what the thematic relevance of a Reverse Memory Charm scenario to the series as a whole might be: > 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... Well, yes. Yes, that will do. That works. It works quite well, although as you know, I tend to prefer the converse interpretation: that Neville's current state represents the problems inherent in the inability to remember, while the later problems that I fear he may be headed for in the canon would represent the problems inherent in the inability to forget. But Gulplum's gloss works every bit as well. No, there's just no denying that Reverse Memory Charm does offer the possibility of strong thematic consistency. And there's even a sadistic sort of Just Desserts pleasure to be found in the Reverse Memory Charm, especially for those of us who do not care very much at *all* for Crouch and his ends-over-means judicial approach. "You *did* want to know, right?" such readers can find themselves snickering maliciously as they contemplate the ramifications of this speculation. "You really, really wanted to know. You wanted to know the truth soooooooo badly. So badly that you were willing to mess up some poor toddler's mind, just to get at it. Well! Congratulations! Got your answer, didn't you? Hope that you really enjoyed it." I mean, there's just so much to like here that I really find myself *wanting* to believe in the Reverse Memory Charm. But I can't. I just can't. There are far too many holes, most of which I've already covered in my comments on the "No Memory Charm At All" Theory. See, I just can't believe that Neville has been walking around reliving the horrible image of his parents being tortured into insanity for the past four books. I just can't buy that. There's far too much evidence to the contrary. There's his overall demeanor, and his reaction to the Second Task's mermaid song, and his reaction to the Dementor on the train -- and then there's also the problem that Porphyria raised here: > He was too little to give testimony (the testimony of thirteen year > old wizards doesn't even count). Yeah, that's a problem too, although I think that it's a very minor one. After all, we already know that legal precedents and due process were being abandoned left and right at the time of the Longbottom Incident. What would one more violation of standard policy matter? But all the same, taken in combination with all of the other problems with the Reverse Memory Charm theory, it does start to add up. And then there's also the, er... Well, the yellow flag violation. I mean, what in blazes is a Reverse Memory Charm, anyway? I hate to hurl such monstrous accusations in a public forum, but I have to admit that there are times, terrible times, Long Dark Nights of my Soul, when I almost find myself suspecting that Cindy... Well, that Cindy might have just made the Reverse Memory Charm *up.* Not, you understand, that I'm saying that she *did* or anything. I mean, I'm hardly going to go throwing any yellow flags around here, ha ha ha. Not, at any rate, while I'm posing such a very tempting target standing right up here in front of everyone. But you know, I can't deny that I sometimes do *think* it. And then finally, there's this problem of the foreshadowing. See, the main support for the entire memory charm speculation in the first place is all of that emphasis that the books have already placed on the existence of memory charms, right? In every single volume, we've had some mention of memory charms, or of some other form of magic (Riddle's Diary, the Fidelius Charm) that has the effect of rendering someone amnesiac, or of hiding information from their conscious mind. References to that sort of thing are just scattered throughout canon. There are spells that erase specific memories, and then there's magic that causes amnesia, and then there are botched memory charms that effectively lobotomize their recipients, and then there are... Well. You see my point, I trust? There's been all of that, and yet we've not had one mention *anywhere* of a memory retrieval spell. We've had memory storage, with the Pensieve, and we've had coerced remembrance, with the Dementors, and we've had veritaserum -- all of which are admittedly getting pretty close -- but we've yet to see anything like a Reverse Memory Charm. Wobbly. The Matching Armchair is indeed Ever So Comfy. But it is also just so very *wobbly.* All the same, though, I'd very much like for it to be true. Because you know what? I think that I've finally figured out just exactly what it is that the Reverse Memory Charm armchair actually matches. It matches my feather boas. And it also matches my politics. ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> <>(("> Okay. Time for another break, I think. Let's just check the... Um. Uh, yeah. Ooooo-kay. So, er, does anyone have any idea why my watch might seem to be, um, *melting?* Well, whatever. Tabouli's Tortured Toddler notwithstanding, MATCHING ARMCHAIR was the last on my list of Memory Charm theories that can really be described as "Grey." From here on out, I'm afraid that we're into the Dark and Nasty ones: "Cover-Up at the Ministry," DEPRECIATION, and "Memory Charm Most Foul." So fortify yourselves well with your beverage of choice during this break, because when we get back, we're headed straight down to the depths. -- Elkins For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% 20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From drumforever at earthlink.net Fri May 17 02:15:35 2002 From: drumforever at earthlink.net (Betty Landers) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 22:15:35 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Exorcizing the Prank Message-ID: <3CE467C6.2D22A488@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38814 Marina snipped Irene: Let's try for something more Bangy then. It's not Snape whom Sirius tried to kill that night, it's Remus who was supposed to die. Sirius says that Snape knew lots of curses when he started Hogwarts, so he must have been quite well armed by his fifth year. I bet there is some "magical" way to kill werewolf besides the silver bullet. So, what Sirius was doing sending this dangerous person to meet his "best friend"? He'd really counted on Snape to succeed, hadn't he - judging how he still hates him for failing after all those years. That would be quite Bangy in my book. :-) *It would indeed. And pardon my saying so this bluntly, but it's also patently rediculous. If PPW were becoming/had already become animagi *for Remus*, then why would Sirius want to have him *killed? No way. I wouldn't buy that one for a penny. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri May 17 02:28:15 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 02:28:15 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Exorcizing the Prank In-Reply-To: <3CE467C6.2D22A488@earthlink.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38815 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Betty Landers wrote: > > Marina snipped > Irene: > Let's try for something more Bangy then. It's not Snape whom Sirius > tried to kill that night, it's Remus who was supposed to die. > Sirius says that Snape knew lots of curses when he started Hogwarts, > so he must have been quite well armed by his fifth year. I bet there > is some "magical" way to kill werewolf besides the silver bullet. > So, what Sirius was doing sending this dangerous person to meet > his "best friend"? He'd really counted on Snape to succeed, hadn't > he - judging how he still hates him for failing after all those years. > > That would be quite Bangy in my book. :-) > > *It would indeed. And pardon my saying so this bluntly, but it's also > patently rediculous. If PPW were becoming/had already become animagi > *for Remus*, then why would Sirius want to have him *killed? Why? 'Cause Sirius had just joined the Junior Death Eaters League, and Remus found out, that's why! Sirius had the perfect cover-up there: if Snape killed Remus, then Remus couldn't talk. And if Remus killed Snape -- who was going to believe a murderous werewolf? And Snape, being a JDEL member himself, was in no position to rat him out. There you have it: Sirius Black Is Ever So Evil. Can I get my FLYING HEDGEHOG badge now? I think it will go really well with my Exploding SNAP badge and my FEATHERBOA made from a Pink Flamingo. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From pennylin at swbell.net Fri May 17 02:54:46 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Thu, 16 May 2002 21:54:46 -0500 Subject: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective; Perspective in the Potterverse References: Message-ID: <015501c1fd4e$346cb360$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38816 Hi all -- Jo Serenadust, commenting on Heidi's theory of a Draco/Hermione romance possibility, said: <<<<>>>>>> Hmmm.... so is this another case of "There's one way, and only one way, to interpret any given character in a work of literature?" We've had this debate before, and I believe it may predate your joining the group, Jo. Rather than re-hash everything that was said in the latest iteration of the debate, I thought I'd just give a link to a few of the messages that really addressed these issues before, as they were quite lengthy (this was April 2001): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/16370 (Lexicon Steve arguing that fanfic changes a reader's perception of JKR's characters and that fanfic writers are circumventing JKR's authorial intent (and therefore fanfic readers are being exposed to interpretative views that don't square with JKR's intentions)) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/16381 (my response, which, in short, counters that authorial intent is not fully discernible unless JKR unequivocally confirms her intent in a chat or interview or by making her notes public) I said in the above post: <<< We all put our own spin on the characters. They're the same characters that JKR created. But, everyone looks at them in a different way.>>>> I also said: <<<< She's an author and doubtless would consider that there is more than one interpretation for everything in her books; there's even more than one path that she could have chosen (having written myself, I can say that you sometimes weigh multiple valid courses of action but eventually must choose only one). Anyway, I'm completely opposed to the notion that there is only one JKR interpretation of these characters and books and I'm especially opposed to the notion that this one interpretation is discernible by people other than JKR herself.>>>> Authorial intent is tricky business IMHO. To say that Heidi is "ignoring" JKR's character development is basically equivalent to saying "Heidi, your interpretation is wrong and mine is correct." The whole point of this discussion list is further *discussion.* And, I might add, virtually everything we discuss here is speculation in some form. Except for the rare occasion when someone needs reminding of an indisputable purely factual matter (i.e. Harry and Dudley are first cousins), all we've done for the last 2.5 yrs is speculate. Whether the speculation takes the form of a straight narrative argument weighing the pros & cons of the proposition that Snape is a vampire, or is a TBAY post elaborating on the same topic or is a fanfic giving a backstory to Snape's vampirehood -- it's all speculation. It just takes various forms. More messages in this prior debate: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/16388 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/16432 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/16434 (strangely I can't find Steve's original message that I'm responding to here ... though it appears I quoted a good bit of his post) (point of this one is to say that anyone who actively participates in HP4GU has their perceptions changed & challenged on a daily basis, whether they read fanfic or not) I also found the following message and its replies, though it's more recent (December 2001): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/31221 (Gwen discussing how fanfic can help a reader bolster his/her canon interpretations) ***************** Jo serenadust continued: <<<<<<<>>>> It sounds as though you've had a really terrible experience with fanfic and that's too bad. There are a number of really great fics out there -- all ships, all genres (shipless & shipper-oriented). It's entirely possible that you could read a dozen or so badly-written or poorly-plotted fics and completely give up on the experience. Check out our Fanfic FAQ or FictionAlley though if you want to give it another whirl & want some recommendations. <<<<<>>>>>> There's alot of speculation on this list, that's true. But, I think most people are actually reasonably serious about the theories they propose and/or defend. We are an obsessed lot after all. :--) Switching to Pippin: << The moment I try to conceive of them as morally complicated, however, their situation makes no sense. Are they Slytherins because the Hat recognizes that at the age of eleven they are "criminally incurable"? OTOH, if they aren't hard cases, why treat them as if they were?>>>> Er ... is having ambition regarded as rendering one "criminally incurable"? Seriously, this notion that the Slytherins are all evil is very flawed in my mind. They are ambitious. Power-hungry. Cunning. Willing to use "any means to achieve their end." But, not necessarily criminal. Not necessarily Evil. Not necessarily. <<>> Not yet perhaps. I don't view this as set in stone, and in fact, quite the opposite. I think the Slytherins will be particularly affected by current events when the new Hogwarts term commences. How many of them will return to school? How will they be received? If one or both parents is "perceived" to be a Death Eater or otherwise allied with Voldemort, will this affect how the other students (and the faculty!) interact with that student? So many questions; so much opportunity for further development. Stress "opportunity" for further development. Whether JKR will have the time or inclination to do so is another matter .... but I think this could be at least a subplot in OOP. <<<>>> Snape may have "changed sides," but he is still allied with the Slytherin House. Why can't Draco be developed as a complex Slytherin or am I misunderstanding your point? Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dicentra at xmission.com Fri May 17 04:38:54 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 04:38:54 -0000 Subject: TBAY: The REAL Rita Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38817 Dicentra sits on the beach as the sun sets, sipping the last of the Kool-Aid in her Dixie cup. She can't remember which theory she just drank--Snape Is Ever So Evil?---but figures she'll buy anything Cindy offers. It's the paddle, you know... As she drains the last drop, a gentle breeze kicks up, and some scraps of paper drift by. Dicentra picks up the closest one and recognizes it as a page from canon. She grabs the rest of the pieces and tries to put them together. But it's too dark; she looks around and sees a flickering light approaching. As it draws nearer, she can see that someone is carrying a flashlight, waving it around randomly like a six-year-old with a toy. Finally, she recognizes the bearer: it's Stoned!Harry, goofing around with his lighted wand. As he draws level with her position, he trips and does a face-plant in the sand. Dicentra grabs his wand. "Lemmee see that," she says, aiming the wand at the scraps of paper. Stoned!Harry picks himself up and comes over to watch. She rearranges the papers until they form three pages. Hmmm. They appears to be pages 303, 304, and 307 from Goblet of Fire, Scholastic edition. Stoned!Harry brightens. "Oh yeah, that's the part where they're doing the weighing of the wands and I meet that stupid reporter woman." Indeed, it's the first time we meet Rita Skeeter. Dicentra reads, "Her hair was set in elaborate and curiously rigid curls that contrasted oddly with her heavy-jawed face. She wore jeweled spectacles. The thick fingers clutching her crocodile-skin handbag ended in two-inch nails, painted crimson." Dicentra thinks there's something odd about this, but she's not sure what it is. She continues reading "...and in a second, her scarlet- taloned fingers had Harry's upper arm in a surprisingly strong grip..." She carefully flips the paper scraps over to read the next page. "Rita Skeeter's smile widened. Harry counted three gold teeth." Still not able to put her finger on it, Dicentra aims the wand at the third page. "'How are you?' she said, standing up and holding out one of her mannish hands to Dumbledore." "What does it say?" asks Stoned!Harry. "No, Harry, this isn't about you," Dicentra murmurs, lost in thought. Stoned!Harry sighs heavily, thrusts his hand in his pocket, and produces the golden snitch. He holds it in front of Dicentra's face. "Oh! No, I didn't mean that," Dicentra laughs, pushing the snitch back toward Stoned!Harry. "I'm not going to toss the snitch over the bay to get rid of you." Stoned!Harry shrugs and puts the snitch back into his pocket. "It's not something you aren't supposed to hear. It's just..." her voice trails off as she dives back into deep thought. But even after one-half hour, she can't figure out what it is about those passages that strikes her funny. So she stands, gathers the paper scraps, and stuffs them into the empty Dixie cup. No sooner has she done so when the Dixie cup begins to shake, and sparks start to fly out of it. She screams and drops the cup; cat-like, it lands right-side up. A moment later the cup belches out a scrap of parchment with slightly singed edges. She catches it, tries to read it, and snatches the wand back from Stoned!Harry, who had been waving it around idly. "Look, knucklehead, can't you see it?" says the paper. "The 'heavy- jawed face,' the 'surprisingly strong grip,' the 'mannish hands...'" Dicentra scratches her head. The parchment vanishes and the Dixie cup belches another. She catches it and reads, "Duh! Rita Skeeter is a man in drag!" Dicentra is so surprised she drops the parchment and the wand and sits down hard on the sand. Of course! Not only is she an unregistered animagus, she's the clever and convincing disguise of a man who Doesn't Want To Be Found. (Or he just LIKES being a woman, but that's not nearly Bangy enough.) Someone with three gold teeth. Someone who took Harry into a *closet* to be interviewed... "Hey Harry, have you met anyone else with three gold teeth, like Rita's?" she asks Stoned!Harry, who has retrieved the wand and is shining it directly into one of his eyes. He shakes his head no and switches to the other eye. Dicentra sets to thinking again: who could be hiding as a woman? It has to be someone we know is missing, and it has to be someone who has not been seen with her. Ludo Bagman would be a funny answer, but he was with her during the Weighing of the Wands, and she was at his trial. Maybe it's someone we haven't met yet. But for it to be sufficiently Bangy, it's got to be a DE in hiding. Someone we know to have been at large for some time. At least since Voldemort's fall... As Dicentra ponders this, the cup belches out a third bit of parchment. She catches it, grabs the tip of Stoned!Harry's wand and points it at the parchment. What she sees makes her gasp audibly: "Avery." But... but... Avery's the Fourth Man! How can he also be Rita Skeeter? Dicentra racks her brains. Let's see... Do we ever see them together? No. Harry sees her at Bagman's trial, but there's no mention of her at the Fourth Man's trial. And she certainly wasn't in Voldemort's Circle. And Sirius says Avery's been at large ever since he wrangled his way out of Azkaban. Dicentra ponders the irony of this. As a man, he's a SYCOPHANT, and as a woman he's Tough as a FEATHERBOA. She looks to the Dixie cup for another answer, but the cup's fire has gone out. She stands and grabs Stoned!Harry by the arm (in a not-so-surprisingly wimpy grip) and leads him toward the dock where the Big Bang is moored. --Dicentra, who wonders what the sam hill Cindy put in that Kool-Aid Glossary: Kool-Aid - Brand name of a powdered drink mix in the U.S. Dixie - Brand name of a paper cup maker (especially little 4 oz cups). For acronyms, visit Inish Alley by clicking on "Databases" in the upper-left hand menu in Web view, then opening the last database on the list. From chetah27 at hotmail.com Fri May 17 03:50:46 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 03:50:46 -0000 Subject: TBAY (I think....): Possible Parallel, but who knows... In-Reply-To: <8332793808.20020415172908@tut.by> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38818 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Alexander wrote: > My last theory on this issue is that not only did he > remain alive due to Harry's body, but that Voldemort never > did lose power at all. This theory is indeed hard to swallow, although very intersting to sink your teeth into. =P I can see your point: Voldemort fakes a sort of "death", so as to lull the WW into a false sense of security and then spring upon them in full power. And some of his words in GoF kind of suport this, I suppose- like when he talks about Harry to the DE's, saying something about how he will prove his strength, that Harry is not as great as made out to be(Something like this, IIRC). You can kind of see him almost revealing his I-was-never-really-dead thing to them there, perhaps after he kills Harry. > That is, if we question Harry's truthfulness. Not that I > say that Harry is a liar. Nope. I say that Harry is dead, > and it's Voldemort is Harry's body. Ooh, the theory thickens. This puts a very interesting spin on the books, just so interesting to sit back and think about. You can almost see it, if only we all didn't love Harry so much. *smiles* Interesting looks on each book, though books 2 and 4 aren't quite as fun to think about as the other two. Some people might..not find this funny, but I think this theory is quite amusing. *wanders off laughing* ~Aldrea From aromano at indiana.edu Fri May 17 06:58:26 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (vanityfair009) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 06:58:26 -0000 Subject: From HPforGrownups - Draco as Darcy? (Was: Re: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective)] In-Reply-To: <20020516204746.18515.qmail@uwdvg023.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38819 Hi, everybody! I went on hiatus a bit ago while a friend was visiting and am now stepping back on-board. *waves to everyone* Oh, look, I see I have perfect timing, as we're in the middle of a discussion about Darcy!Draco, one of my favourite things!! *grins at Heidi* I definitely agree with Heidi about the obvious similarities between Elizabeth and Hermione, and I've always thought that a Draco/Hermione relationship was possible given canon subtext, particularly on Draco's end. However I also think you could easily read Draco's interest in her as a deflection of his obsession with Harry, so I don't really think the Darcy/Elizabeth parallel is strong enough by itself to support D/Hr in canon. However, I do completely believe that the parallels between Draco and Darcy are there for a reason, intended to support the structure of an eventual Draco reformation. (*Watches as worms slither out of newly opened can*) > "marinafrants" wrote: > > > While I don't expect any > > Draco redemption in later books, I'm not going to flatly rule out > > the possibility, either. But I don't see how it would parallel > > Pride and Prejudice. I'm not a D/H shipper (though I wouldn't mind D/H in canon, because then I could take the approach I take to the Draco Trilogy and aver that Draco wants Hermione because she's the closest he'll ever get to having Harry, *sigh*) but I understand and appreciate all of Heidi's points on this subject because I feel they're vital in understanding the minds of Redeemed!Draco fans. It's important to remember that Jane Austen is Rowling's favorite author. She has written thus far with a consistent awareness of mythological and literary themes. While Harry is clearly a Campbellian hero, it's harder to place Draco as an archetypal villain, especially as he has yet to do anything particularly "evil." It makes much more sense given what we know about Rowling to view him as a redeemed literary anti-hero. Looking at the relationship between Harry and Draco from a strictly literary (read, NON-Slash) view, there are decided similarities to Pride and Prejudice, which, as I'm sure you know, had the original title First Impressions. Harry's first impression of Draco is that he's a stuck-up snob, and Draco doesn't pay much attention to Harry, either. Upon learning who Harry is he offers friendship and is rejected. You can view this moment as parallel to the infamous P&P proposal, but I think the possibilities are more interesting if you instead view it as a parallel to Darcy's first offer to dance with Elizabeth, well before the proposal. She turns him down then, and we then begin a rivalry/flirtation that lasts for half the novel, just as Harry/Draco's rivalry has built for half the series. Consider then that just as the end of Book 4 is the turning point in the series, and structurally about halfway through, so Darcy's proposal is about half-way through the novel, and serves as the moment when he begins to reform. You can view Draco's words on the train, "You picked the losing side," as a sort of reverse-psychology proposal. If you're following the parallel to Darcy of P&P, then it's not implausible to say that this moment will be the turning point for Draco just as it is for the series as a whole. Naturally, to make the parallel work there needs to be a similar turning point for Harry (and Hermione and Ron, but Harry especially since we're in his point of view). Perhaps that won't come til after we've laid eyes on the infamous Malfoy Manor, *grin*. But seriously, J.K.R. has already shown us that Harry's first impressions about people are often very misleading. Nothing could be more natural given the way she has set up, as Heidi so clearly outlined, a "series that's all about choices," and, I would add, a series where given assumptions about people and their motivations are challenged on a regular basis. If after Book 4, JKR continues to develop Draco as a stereotypical bad boy destined to follow in the footsteps of his father, I for one will be very surprised. > It really all comes back to the question of whether you think that JKR may not leave Draco's character flat out on the road to being an Evil Death Eater from his first appearance to his last (IMHO, what a *dead dull* thing to do!). In a series that's all about choices,. and how each person has to make them for themselves, it just feels like a tremendous cop-out for her to say that as Draco was born into the Malfoy family, and grew up strongly (perhaps almost exclusively until he was 11) influenced by Lucius Malfoy (who is possibly the *most* evil character in the books), he has no way to go but on the road to evil. He hasn't really had much opportunity to see things in any other way (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/34012) while at Hogwarts, and I don't think he gets much encouragement at home to explore different points of view. *applauds* Exactly, and while I'm jumping tangents, I have to ask why so many people feel determined to see Draco as a Bastion of Pure Evil instead of wishing for him an escape from his father's cruelty and tyranny? If anything, the common theme in literature of sons who fight to break free of the destiny left to them by their fathers (Star Wars, Into the Woods, Death of a Salesman, I could go on and on) is as strong a literary precedent for reformed!Draco as is Jane Austen. That's all for me, for now, I think--good to be back... Aja From Edblanning at aol.com Fri May 17 10:13:06 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 06:13:06 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY: The REAL Rita Message-ID: <159.e0a44ae.2a1631b2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38820 Dicentra: > But... but... Avery's the Fourth Man! How can he also be Rita > Skeeter? Dicentra racks her brains. Let's see... Do we ever see > them together? No. Harry sees her at Bagman's trial, but there's no > mention of her at the Fourth Man's trial. And she certainly wasn't > in Voldemort's Circle. And Sirius says Avery's been at large ever > since he wrangled his way out of Azkaban. > > Dicentra ponders the irony of this. As a man, he's a SYCOPHANT, and > as a woman he's Tough as a FEATHERBOA. She looks to the Dixie cup > for another answer, but the cup's fire has gone out. She stands and > grabs Stoned!Harry by the arm (in a not-so-surprisingly wimpy grip) > and leads him toward the dock where the Big Bang is moored. Eloise, alerted by strange flickers of light on the beach below the castle, rushes down to investigate. 'Hey,you two, what's up?' Stoned!Harry is looking slightly bemused, but Dicentra shows Eloise several rather scruffy, singed pieces of paper which apprear to be evidence that Rita Skeeter and Avery are one and the same. 'Wow! Fourth Man meets Rita Skeeter Is Ever So Evil! What a day this has been! You know, Dicey, this makes even more sense than perhaps even you realise.' Dicentra looks curious. Stoned!Harry, who appears to have no curiosity about the subject at all, has gone back to twirling his wand, making ever more elaborate light patterns against the darkening sky. 'Who is Rita's ally at Hogwarts? Draco Malfoy. Why does she turn on Hagrid? Because of the Malfoys. There, a clear DE connection already. But there's more.' Dicentra looks frankly incredulous at the idea that there could actually be more concrete, canon proof of her theory and that it isn't just the effects of whatever Cindy may or may not have put in her drink. 'Just *how* did Avery wriggle out of Azkaban? He didn't...he *flew* out as a little, no, sorry a 'large, fat' beetle ('thickset', that was Fourth Man, wasn't it?). It worked for Sirius, it works for Fourth Man. Now, the really worrying thing is just how much of that conversation in the hospital wing she heard. You'd better be watching Sirius' back, Dicey. (You know whose back I'll be watching ;-) )' Dicentra and Eloise, satisfied with their new insights, call to Stoned!Harry, who has wandered off into the middle of the Bay, where a large shoal of fish has miraculously appeared in response to the light show he is putting on. 'Hey, bring a few of those with you, won't you?' And thus, bearing gifts, they board the Big Bang, eager to share the news with the rest of the crew, and wondering if Stoned!Harry is able to rustle up any chips to go with the fish. Eloise Glossary: Chips: Anglo-Saxon for French Fries. For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hypotheticalle y.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=13 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri May 17 10:27:14 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 10:27:14 -0000 Subject: Perspective in the Potterverse: Draco's development In-Reply-To: <015501c1fd4e$346cb360$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38821 Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > Switching to Pippin: > > <<>> > > Not yet perhaps. So many questions; so much opportunity for further development. Stress "opportunity" for further development. Whether JKR will have the time or inclination to do so is another matter .... but I think this could be at least a subplot in OOP. > >Why can't Draco be developed as a complex Slytherin or am I misunderstanding your point? > I think the point is that there always has to be *some* background in any story. Each question addressed will raise new questions, in the nature of things. So *some* of the questions we would like answered are bound not to be, no matter how long the books become. However, one of the unusual features of JKR's writing is the way that characters who start out purely as one-dimensional cartoons (if such is possible - do I mean two-dimensional?) - that is to say, clearly signalled as 'background' or 'symbolic' and turn them into something more. A good example is Dudley. In the first three books he is allowed to eat as much as he likes, and is somewhere described as being wider than he is tall, something I'm pretty sure is a physical impossibility that isn't credibly the subject of speculation (unless it's an indication of latent magical ability?). Suddenly, in GOF, reality is allowed to intrude, and he is forced to diet, one crucial consequence of which is that we see the seeds of real conflict in the Dursley household for the first time. He steals Vernon's breakfast, for example. Other examples are Fleur, who moves from haughty eye-candy to concerned sister, probably Arthur Weasley, and almost certainly Ginny. If Bagman returns, he will have expended his capital (in more ways than one!) as dodgy sportsman and will require re-invention as covert Death Eater. Others like Trelawney and the Creevey brothers may well remain locked in their two-dimensional state. FLIRTIAC (see hypotheticalley.htm in the admin files here for an explanation of this) notwithstanding, I have my doubts about Filch, though Mrs Norris reeks of backstory. It is certainly technically possible for Draco to be made more complex without a re-alignment with Harry, and I for one would welcome such a development, but the cynic in me agrees with Pippin that he is doomed to turn good if he is to be developed as a character. I assume Pippin has thematic reasons also for saying he must change sides first, as well as, I think, implying that not doing so would interfere with Harry's role as POV character. David From Edblanning at aol.com Fri May 17 11:58:06 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 07:58:06 EDT Subject: TBAY: Yet another OFH recruit Message-ID: <19d.2641748.2a164a4e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38822 Work never stops at the headquarters of the Order of the Flying Hedgehog. Yet another post arrives: Marina: > Why? 'Cause Sirius had just joined the Junior Death Eaters League, > and Remus found out, that's why! Sirius had the perfect cover-up > there: if Snape killed Remus, then Remus couldn't talk. And if > Remus killed Snape -- who was going to believe a murderous > werewolf? And Snape, being a JDEL member himself, was in no > position to rat him out. > > There you have it: Sirius Black Is Ever So Evil. Can I get my > FLYING HEDGEHOG badge now? I think it will go really well with my > Exploding SNAP badge and my FEATHERBOA made from a Pink Flamingo. > Of course you can, Marina, although perhaps we'd better keep the presentation quiet, if we don't want to upset George. Diana's discretion can be relied on as her only objection to Big Bangs is where they concern the reasons for Snape's conversion. So glad you still have the FEATHERBOA (I thought you wanted it for dressing up George?). I'll get mine out for the occasion. Eloise (who didn't realise anyone else actually possessed an Exploding SNAP badge) For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hypotheticalle y.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=reportRows&tbl=13 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Fri May 17 12:23:25 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:23:25 -0000 Subject: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective; In-Reply-To: <015501c1fd4e$346cb360$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38823 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > > <<< We all put our own spin on the characters. They're the same characters that JKR created. But, everyone looks at them in a different way.>>>> For me, the Pros and Cons of Fanfic boil down to taste, and from the limited amount I have read they are not for me, they're simply not canon. I believe that Fanfic is really going one stage further than the mass of speculation we see on this list. It's the stage further though that I can't get into. It's a theory, possibly brilliant, potentially written even better than canon (have I just committed heresy?) but it's somebody else's fiction. I admit I have only read small snippets of Fanfic, but the bits I have read were written in a very different style to JKR's, and using phrases I couldn't see *my* characters using. I wonder if I'd like Fanfic that sounded like JKR's work any better than one's that don't. I think that they would actually be worse! To sound like JKR, but not be would be like seeing a mirage in the desert only to realise it wasn't real when you finally reached it. I don't why, but I think I will enjoy Fanfic much more when (and if, as I'm getting increasingly desperate) the Harry Potter series is finished. Perhaps I'll then feel free to enjoy it as an addition to the series, when right now I'd only be reading it as a substitute. Ali (Back over 2 weeks after her computer blew up, causing smoke to billow into the room. A new motherboard, power supply and borrowed hard drive later, I'm still catching up with loads of great speculation. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri May 17 12:46:39 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 08:46:39 -0400 Subject: Potterverse Coherence Message-ID: <4D56E32F.0CACD224.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38824 I have a question which has been on my mind for a long time, but was triggered by Dicentra's post on Rita Skeeter: drag artist extroardinaire. The triggering is that #blushes to rain on Dicey's parade# I noticed those 'clues' the first time I read GOF, and was confidently expecting her to be unmasked as a man at the end of the book. When it didn't happen, I later reviewed the Skeeter scenes, and decided I had merely been imagining it. (The idea of a younger-looking Rita in the Pensieve made me think she had to be a woman after all, though that's probably some weird prejudice of mine showing through.) The question I have, though, is, Does JKR *really* put clues in one book that will count as foreshadowing of revelations in a later book? In the specific example of Rita, is she *meant* to have any mystery about her that survives GOF? I hear the shouts of disbelief. But, the whole of HPFGU's *existence* is based on the idea that she does this, I hear you cry. The books are chock-full of foreshadowings, clues and red herrings. My doubts concern the extent to which this is true *from book to book*. They are, I admit, based on the way I read the first three books, in turn based on my experience of the types of literature out of which HP seems to have sprung. If you read the Jennings series by Anthony Buckeridge (or any other school series), or the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett (or most other fantasy series: I except Tolkien, of course), it is obvious that you are reading a collection of episodes loosely linked together in the same fictional environment. In the school series there is usually not even any attempt to pretend that the characters are getting any older. So, to give some examples. When I read COS, and Harry's Parseltongue turned out to be central to the solution of the mystery, my reaction was not: How clever of JKR to put that bit of foreshadowing in the zoo scene in PS; it was: How lucky for JKR that she had put that random bit of underage magic in PS to pick up on and use. Even Hagrid's expulsion I saw in the same light. In POA, I assumed that the idea that Scabbers was an animagus was something that JKR had only thought up when writing that book. That McGonagall is an animagus was to me just part of the common currency of fantasy literature - what's the good of magic if you can't turn yourself into an animal? Like magical flying, or spells to breathe underwater, it's bound to happen some time. It's as inevitable as a microscopic Harry dodging a giant cat/rat/preying mantis (maybe in the country of the giants) will be. In GOF, it never occurred to me that Polyjuice had been *foreshadowed* in COS, even after Crouch was revealed: I assumed that Crouch was not even a twinkle in JKR's eye when Hermione brewed Polyjuice for the first time. She just picked up something not uncommon in stories of magic and ran with it, then picked it up again and used it a bit more. Yes, there were clues *within* each book that pointed to (or deliberately sought to obscure) the resolution of that book - but that's a different thing. In a similar vein, I had really hoped to see the centaurs again after PS, and Dobby after COS. COS disappointed me by dropping the centaurs so comprehensively: POA did not disappoint in either respect, because by then I expected to be short-changed. Of course I was not aware until after reading POA that JKR was giving interviews saying that she had conceived the whole as a series of seven, and hinting that a character was to die in GOF (I mean, who reads author interviews, in the normal course of things?). It was really this last that started to make me view things differently. I naturally wondered who the person could be, and reconsidered the books in that light: I started looking for clues to the *next* book. And found that in fact that nothing in PS to POA would have helped: like many others I fingered Hagrid, wondered about Dumbledore, and thought Lupin unlikely for the simple reason that he would be dropped, not killed. But Cedric? No. So I still by and large felt that my fundamentally episodic conception of HP as a series was confirmed, and that only the broadest 'outline' questions - what is the link between Voldemort and Harry? What are good and evil and how will the conflict between them be resolved? - could be addressed within the series as a whole. So, in GOF, there might be a residual aura of mystery about Bagman or Skeeter - some questions that seem unanswered - but I have to say that my instinct was, and my deepest suspicions still are - that this is sloppy writing, not cunning foreshadowing. Once you have got rid of anything that is either a clue to the surprise that Moody is Crouch, or a red herring to make you suspect Bagman, Crouch Sr, Skeeter, etc, is there anything left? Any puzzle to be solved in a future book? (OK, right at the end, we have some minor mysteries: where has Dumbledore sent Hagrid and Snape? But these are openly presented as mysteries, they are not half-concealed clues that trip up the attentive reader. The gleam is linked to the one mystery that *is* clearly set up for the entire series: what is the connection between Harry and Voldemort?) It was only on joining HPFGU that I really began to consider that it was reasonable to consider that you could treat any part of the published series as being a sort of detective-story clue to anything that might be judged to be a mystery in the context of the series as a whole. Here are some issues that look different if you regard the series as episodic: is there anything more to Snape, other than what JKR chooses to make up *after* the publication of GOF? Was he an ex-DE in POA and before? If the notorious Prank is alluded to again, will there just be another twist in a mystery that has no actual resolution in JKR's mind, in the spirit of X-Files? Or is it forgotten now, as one suspects the singing Valentine is? Are these backstories a gigantic bluff? There is certainly some evidence that JKR's world is less stable than we might like to believe. In COS, Dobby is presented as magically enslaved against his will, and his description of House-Elves generally implies that he is typical. In GOF, the House-Elves are presented as psychologically enslaved, with clothes a symbol of sacking, not a magical means of setting free. While we will doubtless be bending all our ingenuity to reconciling these two views when we look at Philip Nel's question, could it just be that the goalposts were quietly moved while we were busy reading POA? More worrisomely, in PS, Harry's survival of Voldemort's attack as a baby is presented as a mystery; in COS Harry can assert it was the effect of his mother's love but that Voldemort's loss of power is (still) a mystery; in GOF, Voldemort, who one presumes ought to know (again, I find it hard to believe that an Evil Overlord can go against the genre convention of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in his moment of boasting) confirms that this also was the effect of mother-love. Is this supposed to be a mystery or not? One would like to suppose (from the detective story point of view) that the 'mother's love' explanation is an artfully constructed red herring [from the thematic point of view I would like it to be the truth] in which Harry misunderstands Dumbledore's original explanation about Quirrell and goes on to unconsciously bamboozle a deluded Voldemort: however, is JKR up to it? Is any author? So, is JKR a brilliant opportunist, or does she transcend the genres from which her stories spring? I would like to be convinced it's the latter, but I confess I am pessimistic. 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 rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri May 17 12:46:29 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:46:29 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Yet another OFH recruit In-Reply-To: <19d.2641748.2a164a4e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38825 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Edblanning at a... wrote: > Work never stops at the headquarters of the Order of the Flying Hedgehog. Yet > another post arrives: > > Marina: > > Of course you can, Marina, although perhaps we'd better keep the presentation > quiet, if we don't want to upset George. Diana's discretion can be relied on > as her only objection to Big Bangs is where they concern the reasons for > Snape's conversion. I don't think George would object to Sirius being Ever So Evil. Note that my theory requires that Snape be a JDE before the Prank, thus ruling out the Prank as the Big Ban that caused his turn to the Dark Side. > > So glad you still have the FEATHERBOA (I thought you wanted it for dressing > up George?). I'll get mine out for the occasion. George and I take turns wearing the FEATHERBOA. One day I will hunt down and strangle the Second Flamingo, and then we'll each have a boa and won't have to share. > > Eloise > (who didn't realise anyone else actually possessed an Exploding SNAP badge) I love and treasure my Exploding SNAP badge. It's stylish and elegant, and goes with everything I wear. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri May 17 13:46:15 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:46:15 -0000 Subject: From HPforGrownups - Draco as Darcy? (Was: Re: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective)] In-Reply-To: <20020516204746.18515.qmail@uwdvg023.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38826 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidit at n... wrote: > If anyone wants to get into a more extensive discussion of Pride & Prejudice > we should move that over to OT Chatter... I think I can manage to keep this on topic. I hope so, anyhow, since I don't read OT Chatter... > Darcy is in his late 20s, a gentleman whose father has died at least five > years before the novel begins. Draco is, when we last see him, fourteen years > old and still quite under his father's (eye/control/thumb/financial > grip/demands) (choose whichever one you feel most appropriate). Draco's > father is abusive, at least to the servants (slaves, if you prefer Hermione's > term) and many see him as also having been at least emotionally abusive to his > son. All the more reason why the first character cannot be used as a basis of comparison for the second. What do we know of Darcy as a child? Mrs. Reynolds says she's known him since he was four, and "never had a cross word from him," and that he was "good-natured," "affable to the poor," and "the sweetest-tempered, most generous-hearted" boy in the world. I doubt any of the Malfoy house elves would give a similar testimony to Draco. I certainly can't see young Darcy cheating at sports, arranging a duel and failing to show up, or faking an injury to get an animal executed just because he wants to cause distress to the animal's owner. Draco's problem is that he has the overweening pride of aristocracy without the corresponding sense of noblesse oblige. He doesn't feel that his inborn superiority requires him to behave with superior virtue. It never occurs to him that the Malfoy name may be ill-served by such crass actions as using his father's wealth to buy a place on the Quidditch team, or spreading rumors about his rivals to a tabloid reporter. Now, I realize that this is mostly Lucius' fault for setting such a crappy example. But given that Draco is what he is, and was brought up the way he was, what will motivate him to change? For Darcy, all it took was Elizabeth pointing out that he wasn't behaving like a gentleman; his own conscience did the rest. It will take a lot more than that to spur Draco's conscience to action. His parents won't guide him to better behavior; neither will his friends. His head of house can't do it without risking his cover, and his other teachers are taking a hands-off approach. I suspect that if Draco is to be redeemed, then life itself will have to be his teacher. Some future sequence of events will have to break through his selfishness and arrogance and force him to start caring about how his actions affect other people. > Perhaps it's just that I see Draco as the foil and > not the villain that I don't really find it easy to make such parallels either > - he hasn't actually *done* anything evil, so I find it hard to parallel him > to characters who have done evil things. It just doesn't fit. He has not done anything evil, but he has certainly done things Hermione considers to be immoral and/or unjust. And we know how strongly she reacts to injustice. I think the persecution of Bugbeak will always be a sore point with her. She worked her little Muggle-born butt off for most of the school year fighting for Bugbeak's acquittal, putting in huge amounts of time and effort on top of an already insane academic load, all because she truly felt that a miscarriage of justice was being perpetrated. Then all her efforts came to naught, and the best she could do was help Buckbeak escape into hiding. It's no coincidence that the only time Hermione was spurred to a show of violent anger toward Draco was over Buckbeak's conviction. She will shrug off any number of insults to herself, but it will take a hell of a lot to get her over an injustice done to another. Note that Darcy was innocent of the one truly unjust action Elizabeth believed him guilty of. Her prejudice made her believe Wickham's story, and for as long as she believed it, Darcy was disqualified as a suitor, regardless of anything he might have said about Elizabeth herself or her family. If Darcy had been guilty, it wouldn't have made him evil -- it's not like Wickham was accusing him of murder or rape or something -- but there's no way he would've gotten the girl. I think it's worth reiterating at this point that I'm not arguing against the possibility of Draco turning good. I just think that setting him up as the Potterverse Darcy glosses over his flaws and the obstacles that stand between him and redemption. Darcy, stung by Elizabeth's accusations, goes off to do some soul-searching and voila! -- returns as a suitable love interest. Why is he able to do it so easily? Because he was a fundamentally good person all along, brought up right from early childhood. Draco's been brought up very, very wrong. In a way, I think comparing Draco and Darcy does Draco a disservice; if he redeems himself, it will be a far greater feat than what Darcy managed. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri May 17 14:10:33 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:10:33 -0000 Subject: Potterverse Coherence In-Reply-To: <4D56E32F.0CACD224.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38827 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote: > The question I have, though, is, Does JKR *really* put clues in one book that will count as foreshadowing of revelations in a later book? In the specific example of Rita, is she *meant* to have any mystery about her that survives GOF? > That's a very good question. I can't say about Rita, but I can tell you the one thing that convinced me that JKR really does have a master plan going: it's the throwaway mention of Sirius Black at the beginning of PS/SS. Now, if Sirus had been named Joe Smith, I would not have thought twice about his reappearance in PoA. I would be perfectly willing to believe that JKR had opportunistically recycled a random name from a previous book in order to foster an illusion of continuity. Bit Sirius' name is so closely tied in with his character that I just can't believe it was originally tossed in as a throwaway with no intent of future use. I can only conclude that JKR already knew while writing PS/SS that a guy who turns into a black dog was going to play a major role in the overall story. So when PoA gave us not only Sirius but also the Whomping Willow (introduced in CoS), Snape's life-debt to James (introduced in PS/SS) and a major revelation about Scabbers (also introduced in PS/SS) -- *and* all those things turned out to be connected to each other -- I really began to believe that there's a big picture, and JKR knows what it is. This doesn't mean she has all the teeny details worked out (hence all the inconsistencies we keep nitpicking), but I think the overall arc is there. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From pen at pensnest.co.uk Fri May 17 08:57:51 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 09:57:51 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco Redeemable How? In-Reply-To: References: <20020516204746.18515.qmail@uwdvg023.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38828 I'm fascinated (snake/rabbit kind of thing) by this talk of Draco as a potential romantic hero. Pride and Prejudice is one of my favourite books, and I see no parallels whatsoever between Draco and Darcy... okay, we have the whole of P & P to read, and are only just past the half-way point of the Harry Potter stories. But that's not really my point. What I'm wondering is, what are these fertile signs that Draco Malfoy is going to be a reformed character Real Soon Now? Again, I don't see them. As far as I can tell, Malfoy is nasty and spiteful, with no redeeming characteristics. Of course, we are seeing him from Harry's POV, and from the outset Harry has not liked Malfoy. But Harry has not liked Snape either, yet we have been given information to show that Snape is, underneath it all, on the right side. In fact, Snape's behaviour is nasty and spiteful, but his *actions* have shown good intent - saving Harry at the Quidditch match in PS, saving the trio from Lupin and Black in PoA, and the revelations in GoF that he is a reformed Death Eater. He's still unpleasant to Harry at every opportunity, but we have glimpses of promise, and insights into possible reasons/excuses for the unpleasantness. What have Malfoy's *actions* been? As far as I can see, his actions have been just as nasty and spiteful as his words. He dressed up as a dementor, knowing that it might make Harry fall off his broom (possibly fatally), and undoubtedly hoping it would cause Harry to lose the Quidditch match; he did everything in his power to get Hagrid sacked over the Buckbeak incident which was in fact his own fault; he supplied Rita Skeeter with vicious gossip. What has he done to make people so convinced that he's worth redeeming? I don't say that a nasty and spiteful schoolboy can never deserve forgiveness, can never be reformed, but I don't so far see any evidence that underneath it all Malfoy has a basically worthwhile character. Pen From mdartagnan at yahoo.com Fri May 17 15:06:28 2002 From: mdartagnan at yahoo.com (mdartagnan) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 15:06:28 -0000 Subject: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective; Perspective in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <015501c1fd4e$346cb360$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38829 *delurking* Penny wrote: > Hmmm.... so is this another case of "There's one way, and only one way, to interpret any given character in a work of literature?" *snip the rest of the discussion* I've been following this whole discussion (as I followed the previous ones that Penny quoted, and just as I follow almost every fanfic-themed discussion regardless the fandom), being a fanfic writer myself. And I have a question, though it might seem a quite stupid one. First of all, I indeed believe that fanfic *can* broaden someone's perceptions of JKR's characters. I also believe that it *might* change your perception as reader. Case in point: in the Transformers fandom, some fanfic writers are completely pro-Decepticon, so they claim that the characters are noble brother-like warriors that fight for their race. After reading some of their stories, yes, I can see some of the pro-Decepticon fans points (like the friendship between characters), but , while watching the animated series, I can't find their nobility anywhere. Hence, my perception was broadened, yet it wasn't completely changed. In HP, a possible equivalent are the Slytherins and, especially, Draco Malfoy ?in part the origin of this thread. Second, speculation is *fun* and very valid, especially when so much time is passing between books. I *believe* that Neville will become a great wizard, that Snape was in love with Lily, that Dumbledore, by letting Harry face each book's challenge, is actually training him for the final showdown, and being a slash-fan, I actually believe that Sirius and Remus were you-know-what in their youths. BUT that's only what I *believe*. JKR hasn't confirmed any of the above yet, nor in canon (the books), nor in interviews, nor in chats (though she has contradicted herself a couple of times on this media). Some of my theories might be right, others might be wrong and others might never be solved. For example: being a Sirius/Remus shipper, I might come up with many reasons for Remus to trust Sirius immediately in the Shrieking Shack scene. But, if I am discussing canon and try to leave fanfic and speculation behind, the answer is simple: "he saw Peter's name on the Map, learned that Peter was the Secret Keeper and put all the pieces together". So, on to my question. Is it completely possible to separate both speculation and fanfic-broadened perception when discussing canon? BTW, I think it *is* possible. The reader needs to be concious of it, and sometimes that isn't easy, but it is possible. At least for me, anyway. Take care, Marijose /Altair Excusing herself for her English From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri May 17 17:52:45 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:52:45 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Yellow Flags & Jobberknolls (WAS Memory Charm Symposium (2 of 3) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38830 What's this gathering Cindy has found in the basement of the Canon Museum? The pamphlet announces the "Memory Charm Symposium: The Final Word On The Neville Backstory." There's even a schedule of afternoon break-out groups for all sorts of Memory Charm variants. Wizards in Black. Benevolent Memory Charms. No Memory Charm At All. Even Regressive Hypnosis. And the whole thing is . . . Free! Always willing to partake of something free, Cindy strides into the room. It is packed with Memory Charm Enthusiasts, each bearing a Paddle with his or her favorite Memory Charm Variant. Elkins stands before the assembled crowd, her knuckles white from her death grip on the sides of the podium. Cindy's eyes flick over to the side of the room, where Elkins has thoughtfully provided quite a selection of refreshments. There are pitchers of Kool-Aid in every flavor ever conceived, including unpopular varieties like "Black Olive." Elkins is very thorough that way. Cindy loads her own Big Paddle with a roll of Ritz crackers and a can of Cheeze Wiz. She pours Kool-Aid from the pitcher marked "Unsweetened." She moves to the front row, easing herself into her MATCHINGARMCHAIR. Everyone else in the front row immediately moves several rows back. George, sensing trouble, humbly offers Cindy a GIANTCUSHION upon which to rest her feet. Cindy kicks it roughly in the direction of the podium and fixes Elkins with a withering stare. ****************** Elkins: > Ah. But speaking of those yellow flag violations, we now come at > last to... Whoa! Hang on! Stop right there! Before we start talking about Reverse Memory Charm Neville, we have to get our terminology straight. Let's make sure we all agree on the nature of a Yellow Flat Violation. Maybe I can help here. Just let me grab my TBAY Rulebook. . . What? You didn't know there was a TBAY Rulebook? Well there is! I have it right here. What's that? You want your own copy? Sorry, I'm so sorry. I'm *terribly* sorry. There's only the one copy and . . . um . . . it will burst into *flames* if I try to copy it. But you can ask me any question about TBAY rules and I'll be more than happy to look it up for you. Let's see . . . We have "Yapping" . . . "Yelling" . . . Ah yes, here it is. "Yellow Flag Violation -- attempting to resolve a FLINT or other mystery in a past book by inventing a spell, charm, potion, magical device or character that would have been described or used in that book had such a spell, charm, potion, magical device or character existed." Oh, look. Here are a few helpful purely hypothetical examples of Yellow Flag Violations: "Inventing a Tractor Beam Charm to explain why Lily and James didn't just apparate away with Harry when Voldemort appeared." "Inventing a Sticky Fingers Charm to explain how Voldemort managed to keep hold of his wand when the AK curse rebounded onto him." "Addressing the question of whether Hogwarts teachers marry by inventing Mr. McGonagall." Oh, wait. Wow! This is a *great* Rulebook. There's even a cross- reference. "Creative Theorizing." Oooh, that looks interesting. Let's turn to that. "Creative Theorizing -- solving open canon questions or mysteries using existing canon devices or *reasonable variants* thereof, especially including antidotes to potions and reverse charms, so long as the variant violates no existing canon principles and makes good sense. " Oh, wait, there are some examples under "Creative Theorizing." "Includes the Reverse Memory Charm as a variant of the canon Memory Charm." "Includes the ToadKeeper spell as a variant of having one's soul removed by a dementor." What's that? Just what are you trying to say there? Well, *of course* those last examples are actually in the Rulebook. Why would I just make those up? Oh, no. I'm terribly sorry. I can't let you see for yourself. You'd probably go *blind* if you try to read the Rulebook yourself. You don't want to take that chance, do you? Didn't think so. All right. Now on to The Reverse Memory Charm Theory itself. *********** Sorry to interrupt, Elkins, you go right ahead: > Neville is indeed the victim of a memory spell, but it is not one > designed to *suppress* his memories at all. Rather, he was exposed > to some form of magical memory-enhancement, probably by ministry > officials hoping to get some leads on the identities of the > Longbottoms' attackers. The end result of this has been that Neville > now helplessly relives the memory of having witnessed his parents' > torture, particularly whenever he is under stress, thus rendering him > incapable of concentrating on other matters. > MATCHINGARMCHAIR, the "Reverse Memory Charm" Theory, is definitely > appealing in that it caters to all of our worst suspicions about the > MOM. By suggesting that Neville is tormented on a near-constant > basis by the sound of his parents screaming in agony, it also pleases > the anti-sap brigade. There is not a single ewwwwy bit of sappiness > to be found in the Reverse Memory Charm theory. It is not in the > least bit sappy. It isn't even *nice.* Aw, Elkins. That is so *sweet*! I mean, I couldn't have said it better myself. Reverse Memory Charm Neville has a lot to recommend him, and I'm glad you think so. But, let's not forget to do a Bang assessment. Reverse Memory Charm Neville is consistent with the idea that the Pensieve Four didn't just sling Frank and his wife around and rough them up. No, JKR went for the *worst* thing she could think up for Frank and his wife. Torture. Hours and hours of torture, to the point of driving them insane. Does she torture them until they die? No, that would be *too good* for Frank and his wife. JKR goes all out by leaving them alive but insane. She is working so hard to generate a Bang here that she just skips right over the objection that people don't go insane from torture in this fashion. Heck, JKR was so hell-bent on getting a Bang out of the Longbottoms that she completely lost her head and even got a bit FLINT-y. We know for a fact that Crouch Jr. knows how to perform the Imperius Curse quite well, and it is almost an undisputed fact that he was one of the Pensieve Four. Why, I ask, didn't the Pensieve Four just use the Imperius Curse to get the information out of Frank and his wife, kill them both, and be done with it? I'll tell you why. JKR is swinging for the fence on the torture of the Longbottoms. She is going for a Monster Bang there. That's one reason why Reverse Memory Charm Neville has *so darn much appeal* to Bangers. Heck, even George starts stroking his FEATHERBOA when we start talking about Reverse Memory Charm Neville. Elkins (resisting the irresistible tug of Reverse Memory Charm Neville): > I mean, there's just so much to like here that I really find >myself *wanting* to believe in the Reverse Memory Charm. But I >can't. I just can't. There are far too many holes . . . Holes? You're seeing *holes*? I'm seeing a theory that can be molded and tailored to the tastes of the individual. It's not riddled with holes; it's *inclusive*! Here, let me show you. Elkins: > See, I just can't believe that Neville has been walking around > reliving the horrible image of his parents being tortured into > insanity for the past four books. I just can't buy that. There's > far too much evidence to the contrary. There's his overall >demeanor, > and his reaction to the Second Task's mermaid song, and his >reaction > to the Dementor on the train Ah, but that is because you have apparently turned the Dolby sound up really high to the setting marked "Earsplitting Shrieks". You've also apparently selected the "Continuous Loop" setting in which Neville hears these magnified shrieks 24/7. That's very courageous of you, really it is. Now, me? I can live with the 24/7 earsplitting shrieking because it is so Bang-worthy. But you can tone it down a bit if you like. Do your own sound-check, if you know what I mean. You can do this by turning those 24/7 shrieks into that annoying high-pitched whining sound stores use to keep dogs out, or you can do this by having the screaming be intermittent. You make the call there. Personally, I'd recommend the intermittent Dolby screaming for you, Elkins. That way, Neville doesn't have to be a complete basket case. There's the extra added bonus that Neville never knows when he's going to get a huge blast of his mother's screams. I like the tension there. He can be brave and heroic at times, and he can be melting cauldrons at other times. Can you work with that? Elkins: > And then there's also the, er... > > > > Well, the yellow flag violation. I mean, what in blazes is a Reverse > Memory Charm, anyway? I hate to hurl such monstrous accusations in a > public forum, but I have to admit that there are times, terrible > times, Long Dark Nights of my Soul, when I almost find myself > suspecting that Cindy... > > > > Well, that Cindy might have just made the Reverse Memory Charm >*up.* Cindy raises her eyes from her Symposium Notebook at the sound of her name. But it isn't the sound of her name that caught her attention, if truth be told. It is the *hideous and unthinkable slander* spoken in connection with her name. Her brow furrows. What is the best response to this? There are so many possibilities. There's always the Big Paddle she carries with her to these events. But she has carefully balanced her refreshments on her Paddle, and she doesn't wish to set them down with that voracious Avery eyeing them hungrily. Besides, all Cindy can accomplish with the Big Paddle is to make Elkins flinch again. Cindy doesn't want Elkins to buy Reverse Memory Charm Neville out of . . . a desire to avoid bodily harm. Cindy wants a Full-Fledged Conversion out of Elkins. But . . . but . . . there's also something that Cindy hasn't tried before: Addressing the issue directly with reference to actual *canon*. Cindy shrugs. It's worth a try, she figures, so she'll wait to see where Elkins is going with this . . . Elkins: > We've not had one mention *anywhere* of a memory retrieval spell. > We've had memory storage, with the Pensieve, and we've had coerced > remembrance, with the Dementors, and we've had veritaserum -- all of > which are admittedly getting pretty close -- but we've yet to see > anything like a Reverse Memory Charm. Well, I see where you are going there. I have to admit that JKR hasn't explicitly established the Reverse Memory Charm in canon. No doubt about it. So is that enough to dispatch Reverse Memory Charm Neville once and for all? Heck no. In fact, I'm glad you mentioned it. Because you have led me toward a *Huge* Blockbuster New Canon for Reverse Memory Charm Neville. I can't believe I didn't catch on to this months ago. It's been right there under my nose the whole time. OK. It's time for *me* to swing for the fence, so stand back -- How about if I find something in canon related to memory that JKR has already established, something that is right there in black and white, but something that JKR seems to have intentionally left vague? How about if I can even link it to Truth Serum, which is similar to the Reverse Memory Charm? OK, here goes . . . Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, p. 23. "Jobberknoll: The Jobberknoll (northern Europe and America) is a tiny blue, speckled bird which eats small insects. It makes no sound until the moment of its death, at which point it lets out a long scream made up of every sound it has ever heard, regurgitated backwards. Jobberknoll feathers are used in Truth Serums and Memory Potions." What's this? A canon potion that has yet to figure into the plot and has to do with memory? A link to Truth Serums, which are the sorts of things that are useful for getting information out of someone in an interrogation, especially if one is investigating a crime. And (yeah, it's almost too good to be true) a link to *screams* ? like the tortured screams of Frank and his wife. Yeah. I'm thinking that's enough canon basis to support the concept of Memory Retrieval. Reverse Memory Charm, Reverse Memory Potion -- take your pick. I'm *very* inclusive on that point. ;-) Elkins: > And then finally, there's this problem of the foreshadowing. See, > the main support for the entire memory charm speculation in the first > place is all of that emphasis that the books have already placed on > the existence of memory charms, right? In every single volume, we've > had some mention of memory charms, or of some other form of magic > (Riddle's Diary, the Fidelius Charm) that has the effect of rendering > someone amnesiac, or of hiding information from their conscious > mind. References to that sort of thing are just scattered throughout > canon. There are spells that erase specific memories, and then > there's magic that causes amnesia, and then there are botched memory > charms that effectively lobotomize their recipients Let me launch a spirited attack on the notion that the failure to establish the Reverse Memory Charm in Books 1-4 means that JKR won't whip it out in Book 5. What did we see with Polyjuice potion? JKR established it in CoS, and turned to it again as the major plot twist in Book 4. How about Animagi? JKR established that in PS/SS and used it as the major plot twist in Book 3. Does that mean that the Reverse Memory Charm won't turn out to be important in Book 5 because JKR hasn't mentioned it yet? Heck no. See, there are *lots* of times when an important spell, potion or device is introduced in the very same book in which it is most important. Veritaserum. The Summoning Charm. Voldemort's Rebirthing Potion. And in the case of Voldemort's Rebirthing Potion, which was *Huge*, it came completely out of the blue with no foreshadowing at all. So could JKR finish off the Neville Backstory by pulling a Reverse Memory Charm out of her back pocket? Yup, and none of us would feel the least bit cheated. But why would she fail to foreshadow the Reverse Memory Charm? I mean, JKR *loves* to slip these things past us. Why would she not at least *mention* a Reverse Memory Charm somewhere to lay a foundation for it in OoP? That's easy, really. Because we are all onto her, that's why! Big time. Oh, we were fooled by Animagi and Polyjuice, even though JKR established them early on and we all just forgot about them. But is there anyone here at the Symposium who thinks there is any way at all JKR could have worked a mention of a Reverse Memory Charm into Books 1-4 without ruining the Reverse Memory Charm plot twist in Book 5? Anyone? No, I didn't think so. All JKR can hope to do is lay a foundation. She can, as Elkins pointed out, load the text of Books 1-4 with all manner of memory charm-related events, none of which are really necessary to the plots of those books at all. And she has. But it isn't because she's setting up Memory Charm Neville. She's setting up the misdirection (and, at the same time, the foundation) for Reverse Memory Charm Neville. Elkins: > Wobbly. The Matching Armchair is indeed Ever So Comfy. But it is > also just so very *wobbly.* Oh, no. It's not wobbly. It's rock solid. That's because the legs of the MATCHINGARMCHAIR are loaded with *canon*. Very stable and heavy canon. That's the best kind of canon, you know. ;-) Cindy ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> Glossary: Ritz Crackers -- round butter-flavored crackers that contain no butter at all. Cheeze Wiz -- bright orange processed cheese sold in a pressurized can that dispenses the cheese in a squiggly line. See Also -- Velveeta. *************** For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% 20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From heidit at netbox.com Fri May 17 18:09:06 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 18:09:06 -0000 Subject: Can Character Change: A Separate Post Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38831 I'm posing this separate from my Draco-focused response because I don't want it to get lost - I know some of you :) are likely not interested in debating Draco's redeemability or lack thereof. Pen wrote: > I don't so > far see any evidence > that underneath it all Malfoy has a basically > worthwhile character. IMHO, I think this goes to a fundemantal question of the books: Can character change? Well. We've heard that Snape went from being a Death Eater to being a spy. Some argue that Sirius has gone from being a prankster and possibly somewhat unconcerned with the lives and mental health of those around him, to being very concerned with his Godson's well being. Various listies want Neville to become more outspokenly brave and magical, once he gets rid of that pesky memory charm. And of course there's Peter, who once had good friends and was thought to be weak and untalented - he killed over a dozen muggles with one curse and had the chutzpah to cut off his own hand. Sea change, anyone? But the likelihood of Lucius Malfoy being anything but, varyingly, abusive, somewhat homicidal and inconsiderate to house elves and other living things is quite farfetched, as is the notion that Dumbledore is Ever So Evil. Or Voldemort renouncing immortality-seeking in favor of planting daisies. Isn't it? Or is it? So... have at it! Can character change? And if so, what seeds have to have been sown by now to "allow" it? Heidi www.fictionalley.org From Ali at zymurgy.org Fri May 17 18:12:53 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 18:12:53 -0000 Subject: Potterverse Coherence In-Reply-To: <4D56E32F.0CACD224.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38832 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., dfrankiswork at n... wrote: > The question I have, though, is, Does JKR *really* put clues in one book that will count as foreshadowing of revelations in a later book? In the specific example of Rita, is she *meant* to have any mystery about her that survives GOF? > > I hear the shouts of disbelief. But, the whole of HPFGU's *existence* is based on the idea that she does this, I hear you cry. The books are chock-full of foreshadowings, clues and red herrings. > > My doubts concern the extent to which this is true *from book to book it is obvious that you are reading a collection of episodes loosely linked together in the same fictional environment. In the school series there is usually not even any attempt to pretend that the characters are getting any older. > > So, to give some examples. When I read COS, and Harry's Parseltongue turned out to be central to the solution of the mystery, my reaction was not: How clever of JKR to put that bit of foreshadowing in the zoo scene in PS; it was: How lucky for JKR that she had put that random bit of underage magic in PS to pick up on and use. Even Hagrid's expulsion I saw in the same light. IMO, the fact that you just thought how lucky it was, points to how clever it was! > > Yes, there were clues *within* each book that pointed to (or deliberately sought to obscure) the resolution of that book - but that's a different thing. > my fundamentally episodic conception of HP as a series was confirmed, and that only the broadest 'outline' questions - what is the link between Voldemort and Harry? What are good and evil and how will the conflict between them be resolved? - could be addressed within the series as a whole. > > It was only on joining HPFGU that I really began to consider that it was reasonable to consider that you could treat any part of the published series as being a sort of detective-story clue to anything that might be judged to be a mystery in the context of the series as a whole. > There is certainly some evidence that JKR's world is less stable than we might like to believe. In COS, Dobby is presented as magically enslaved against his will, and his description of House- Elves generally implies that he is typical. In GOF, the House-Elves are presented as psychologically enslaved, with clothes a symbol of sacking, not a magical means of setting free. While we will doubtless be bending all our ingenuity to reconciling these two views when we look at Philip Nel's question, could it just be that the goalposts were quietly moved while we were busy reading POA? Possibly, but in CoS we see the House-Elf situation through the eyes of Dobby - seen by his fellow House-Elves as an exception, in Hagrid's words a weirdo. In GoF, we learn a different perspective through Winky et al. I accept that this could be just JKR changing the situation to suit her story, but some how I doubt it. Given that Hermione is, at least in someways an embodiment of her teenage self, I feel that JKR would always have wanted to show Hermione tackling a difficult social issue. I believe it was pre-planned. IMO, the House- Elves will play an important role in the coming battle. > > More worrisomely, in PS, Harry's survival of Voldemort's attack as a baby is presented as a mystery; in COS Harry can assert it was the effect of his mother's love but that Voldemort's loss of power is (still) a mystery; in GOF, Voldemort, who one presumes ought to know (again, I find it hard to believe that an Evil Overlord can go against the genre convention of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in his moment of boasting) confirms that this also was the effect of mother-love. Is this supposed to be a mystery or not? One would like to suppose (from the detective story point of view) that the 'mother's love' explanation is an artfully constructed red herring [from the thematic point of view I would like it to be the truth] in which Harry misunderstands Dumbledore's original explanation about Quirrell and goes on to unconsciously bamboozle a deluded Voldemort: however, is JKR up to it? Is any author? With regard to Harry's survival, I suppose I'm still hoping that it was MORE than Lily's sacrifice that saved him. The fact that Voldemort wanted to kill Harry at all must have some bearing on why Harry survived - mustn't it? Unless, it wasn't so much that Voldemort was desperate to kill Harry *specifically*, but had decided he was going to. Perhaps Voldemort was really *trying* to spare Lily. I don't think that works though. He may have been willingly to save Lily, but it didn't seem to take him more than a few seconds to change his mind and kill her. Voldemort sometimes seems quite slow on the uptake, doesn't initially *know* what caused Harry to surive. Dumbledore only feeds Harry information on a "need to know" basis. I am still hoping that the survival will prove to be more complicated that it Harry currently believes. > > So, is JKR a brilliant opportunist, or does she transcend the genres from which her stories spring? > I suspect that she is a mixture of both. Given that she spent 5 years plannning the books before she started to write them, she must have had quite a structure on which to base the books. All those notebooks and backstories she has written to seem to point to more than just opportunism. I think that she has not found the structure to be foolproof though - hence deleting Rita Skeeter from the original Leaky Cauldron scene, and deleting the Weasley cousin from GoF. I do wonder though, if JKR spent so much time planning and structuring the series, why it is taking her so loooong to write OoP! Ali From heidit at netbox.com Fri May 17 18:37:58 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 18:37:58 -0000 Subject: Draco, perspective, Why Ask Why? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38833 Pen wrote: > I'm fascinated (snake/rabbit kind of thing) by this > talk of Draco as a > potential romantic hero. Has there been such talk? I hadn't noticed. I've been talking about Draco being something other than evil, possibly becoming a three dimensional character in canon, and the reasons why I don't think a relationship between him and Hermione in canon would necessarily be impossible but none of those things make him into a romantic hero. Pen also wrote: > what are these fertile signs > that Draco Malfoy is > going to be a reformed character Real Soon Now? I also haven't seen anyone who argues that Draco might end up something other than evil say it'll happen Real Soon Now - I certainly don't expect it to be obvious before Book 7, and perhaps towards the end of that (although I expect him to move toward something other than evil during book 6, if not book 5, but I don't think the reader will learn about it until Book 7). > But Harry > has not liked Snape > either, yet we have been given information to show > that Snape is, > underneath it all, on the right side. In fact, > Snape's behaviour is nasty > and spiteful, but his *actions* have shown good > intent Absolutely true, and I think that's because Snape is *now* on the side of good. But clearly he wasn't always - Dumbledore even says that Snape *was* a Death Eater but by the time Voldemort fell, he was a spy. In other words, he had chosen to become a Death Eater, but made a subsequent choice to spy - not that he had joined the Death Eaters *as* a spy. To state it another way, he was once on the side of Not Good, and changed his mind. If Snape, if Death Eater Severus Snape, can make that decision in either his very late teens or 20s (depending on how you read the chronology and when he turned), then why can't Draco make it at 15? 16? 17? And I can point again to Draco's warning the Trio to get out of the area during the World Cup. That action can certainly show good intent. How could it show malicious intent? It's possible that it shows cowardace (if he was unwilling to take on Ron and Harry at the same time to call the Death Eaters' attention to Hermione) but that doesn't mean it also showed malice. Marina wrote: > All the more reason why the first character cannot > be used as a basis > of comparison for the second. I think it's important, now, to go back to the first of my recent posts on this matter: <> Following in the footsteps of is different from "is a complete parallel to". While I see that there are parallels in the descriptions about Darcy provided by Elizabeth, or in his statements from the early parts of the book, it's more that I see in the narrative the ability to modulate Draco's character to give him a chance to separate the principles that he was raised to believe were right (in this case, the belief that he could act with self absorbtion and in pride and conceit) from the way that one actually *should* behave. I have never said, and I do not think, that she's rewriting the character of Darcy through Draco Malfoy. I do, however, think that the sharp shock of Elizabeth's denial of Darcy's proposal, which caused him to make a sea change in his outward personality (at least towards her or for her benefit), may be paralleled in the narrative by having Draco experience something that shakes the foundations on which he lives his life- and thus cause him to make a sea change as well. That's the fundamental parallel, at it's basest level. It's not superficial, it's an underlying narrative structure. > Draco's problem is that he has the overweening pride > of aristocracy > without the corresponding sense of noblesse oblige. > He doesn't feel > that his inborn superiority requires him to behave > with superior > virtue. Well, if he follows his parents' guidance, at least he'll make lovely-sized donations to charity, as the Malfoys have done (see: Fudge's response to the accusation against Lucius at the end of GoF, which was also established in the Top Box scene). It never occurs to him that the Malfoy name > may be ill-served > by such crass actions as using his father's wealth > to buy a place on > the Quidditch team, Again, why do people think this? I've posted about this before, but Draco is a good flyer (see: PS/SS, the flying lesson scene) and in PoA, wins over both Cho and Cedric (Gwendolyn Grace did an excellent post about this a few weeks ago). Isn't it just *possible* that Lucius bought the brooms for the team in an effort to get the whole team to play better and fly faster? In other words, it's not for Draco - it's for house pride. > or spreading rumors about his > rivals to a tabloid > reporter. Well, yes, point taken. Darcy was impeccable at not discussing Wickham's behavious publicly (as it might have reflected badly on his family) and see what nearly came of that? (see OT chatter for further discussion of Lydia and her parallels to (oh heck, who am I kidding...)) > given that Draco > is what he is, > and was brought up the way he was, what will > motivate him to change? It will > take a lot more than that to spur Draco's conscience > to action. Some > future sequence of events will have to break through > his selfishness > and arrogance and force him to start caring about > how his actions > affect other people. Since this post is so long already, am I forgiven for a "Yes, I agree!" in the middle of it? Great! Dave wondered: > It is certainly technically possible for Draco to be > made more > complex without a re-alignment with Harry, and I for > one would > welcome such a development It's not only technically possible - it's narratively reasonable. If he decides that he wants to save his own skin, it's entirely possible that he'll turn against his father for some fault of Lucius' that he 'only now realises the horribleness of' or something like that. In other words, if it serves his interests to make an alliance with Dumbledore's side, it might have nothing to do with choosing the side of the right because it's the Right Thing to Do (then again, we don't even know why Snape did, so...). In that case, I have to concede, the Draco/Hermione Ship pretty much hits the rocks, unless she takes the approach that he's starting on the road to being Something Other Than Selfish & Evil, and sets herself to change it and him. heidi From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri May 17 18:57:11 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 18:57:11 -0000 Subject: Can Character Change: A Separate Post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38834 Heidi asked: > Can character change? This is a very valid question that goes to the heart of a lot of the speculation that goes on around here, IMO. Everyone is likely to have a different answer, but here's my answer. Yes. Characters can change over the course of a book or a series. Heidi proved this with the examples she provided. But, alas, things start to get murky fairly quickly when we dig a bit deeper. How about this for an example? Let's say that I decide to predict/advocate Ambitious!Ron. Ambitious!Ron wants to be a prefect, then be Head Boy, then secure a lofty position at MoM, then be Minister of Magic. Ambitious!Ron will stop at nothing to make this happen, even diving into all of his schoolwork (including Divination) to get top marks and lots of OWLS and NEWTs. If Ambitious!Ron has to step on Percy and Mr. Weasley to claw his way to the top of MoM, well, ya gotta do what ya gotta do, right? I think we'd all agree that Ron isn't currently amibitious in quite this way (if at all). There's an argument to be made that Ambitious! Ron is directly contradicted by almost all of Ron's canon behavior. But could JKR do this with Ron's character? Of course. What would it take? Well, I could be flip and say "Massive Head Trauma." But short of that, JKR could imagine all manner of scenarios and motivations for a sea change in Ron's characterization. I mean, she's really holding all of the aces, isn't she? She can make up spells, characters, and plot twists and combine them to give us Ambitious!Ron. I wonder, however, whether the fact that JKR *could* do a 180 degree turn with a character makes something like Ambitious!Ron a canon- based theory. I don't think it does. Because, like it or not, the readers are stuck with the canon of the first four books, JKR's words, and those two schoolbooks she wrote. That, and a bit of logic, are all we have to go on. So IMHO, the fact that JKR *could* push a character in a certain direction does not provide me with a compelling reason to buy a particular theory. And the fact that another author in another series or work of fiction chose to have his or her characters behave in a certain way is not probative at all of what JKR's canon characters do and will do, IMHO. It might be fun to discuss this as an intellectual exercise, but anyone raising an Ambitious!Ron-type theory has to understand that not everyone will accept the part of Ambitious!Ron that goes beyond the four corners of canon. >And if so, what seeds have to have been sown by now to "allow" it? I'd say that the proponent of a character change has a real uphill climb, to tell you the truth. There should be, at a minimum, substantial ambiguity in canon about the character. So let's change Ambitious!Ron to Ambitious!Percy or Ambitious! Hermione. Both of these characters have shown us plenty of ambition (although nowhere near the type of ambition I used in Ambitious! Ron), so I'd bet more people would buy those character changes. And in fact, some people have advocated them on the list, IIRC. Is there sufficient ambiguity about something like Redeemable! Draco? Well, to me, that's the key question. If there is some ambiguity -- some clear reason to think he is good deep down or that he likes Hermione deep down -- well, that would help a great deal. Speaking for myself, I haven't seen it yet. Or, at least, enough of it. If someone wants to make the case for Redeemable!Draco, I'll always listen, of course. But I can't make any promises that I'll sign on for a tour of duty. ;-) Cindy From editor at texas.net Fri May 17 19:14:54 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:14:54 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Yellow Flags & Jobberknolls (WAS Memory Charm Symposium (2 of 3) References: Message-ID: <001701c1fdd7$251343a0$b37663d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38835 Amanda dares to interrupt the proceedings, looks timidly and apologetically at the great captains and Rulebook-bearers, clears her throat, and speaks. My name is Amanda, and I'm an ancient Snape/Lily theorist (from back before we admitted it was a SHIP). I have two Awful Confessions to make. (1) I have begun to read this thread for the interaction between the listfolk. I'm skimming the parts where you're actually arguing canon and theories and flags and hedgehogs and whatnot. (2) I have begun to fear that the creative juices of this list are simply too creative, and anything that JKR actually comes up with will now seem wilted and pedestrian beside some of what you've postulated. I really, really, really hope that one of you geniuses out there is keeping some TBAY master file and will offer it in book form to us one day. I am highly entertained (not to mention intimidated, as I've lost track of the different theories and am now too uncertain to chime in). As I recall, when the original SHIPS hit the water, I was floating beside them in an inner tube, making fun of them. The waves your destroyers and aircraft carriers and things have generated have pushed me far, far out to sea. At least I'm not close enough for a hedgehog to poke a hole in my tube. Thank you. You may return to your regularly scheduled speaker. --Amanda From suzchiles at pobox.com Fri May 17 19:20:00 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 12:20:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can Character Change: A Separate Post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38836 > -----Original Message----- > Some argue that Sirius has gone from being a prankster and > possibly somewhat unconcerned with the lives and mental health of > those around him, to being very concerned with his Godson's well > being. I think it's a mistake to categorize Sirius based on just what we know about the "prank". As of the end of book 4, we know nothing about Sirius before the death of James and Lily Potter. My view is that if James and Lily asked to be their secret keeper, he must have been a trustworthy person. Which he was. I seriously doubt if anyone reading this list would care to be categorized by one stupid thing that they did when they were 16. It wouldn't be fair. Nor, in my opinion, is it fair to diss Sirius. Zoe H From heidit at netbox.com Fri May 17 20:16:48 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 13:16:48 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can Character Change: A Separate Post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020517201648.37096.qmail@web9502.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38837 I know this post is going to sound argumentative and I don't really want it to, because on one level, I agree with a lot of what Suzanne said but... --- Suzanne Chiles wrote: > My view is that > if James and Lily asked > to be their secret keeper, he must have been a > trustworthy person. But they then asked Peter to be their secret keeper and look how that turned out. Not only was he untrustworthy... > > I seriously doubt if anyone reading this list would > care to be categorized > by one stupid thing that they did when they were 16. > It wouldn't be fair. It would be absolutely unfair. Of course, in the real world it does happen, and on another level, I can't fault Snape for having a hard time trusting in or believing Sirius - I'm not sure he'll ever feel comfortable with it - but we've also had an indication that, from Snape's perspective, Sirius did more than this one prank - if you look at some of the things he referred to in the post-Hogsmeade scene where he criticises James, it's clear that something else about Sirius made Snape suspect that he was passing information to the Death Eaters and/or Voldemort, and that James was "wrong about Sirius Black." > Nor, in my opinion, is it fair to diss Sirius. Oh, heavens, I hate the idea of dissing Sirius - I adore his character! I think he's an all around good guy now. But I think he's done some Not Nice things in his time - and look at him! He's Still Not Evil! ===== heidi tandy They say its a sign of mental health to hold apparently contradictory ideas in your mind. The world of late has been a particularly exotic stew of horror and beauty. There are killers, there are saints. The trick is to find the right spot on the spectrum between abject despair and total obliviousness. And then carry on... Joel Achenbach __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From finwitch at yahoo.com Fri May 17 17:58:15 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 17:58:15 -0000 Subject: Potterverse Coherence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38838 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > Bit Sirius' name is so closely tied in with his character > that I just can't believe it was originally tossed in as a throwaway > with no intent of future use. I can only conclude that JKR already > knew while writing PS/SS that a guy who turns into a black dog was > going to play a major role in the overall story. So when PoA gave us > not only Sirius but also the Whomping Willow (introduced in CoS), > Snape's life-debt to James (introduced in PS/SS) and a major > revelation about Scabbers (also introduced in PS/SS) -- *and* all > those things turned out to be connected to each other -- I really > began to believe that there's a big picture, and JKR knows what it > is. This doesn't mean she has all the teeny details worked out (hence > all the inconsistencies we keep nitpicking), but I think the overall > arc is there. Well-- She *does* have a 'master plan' going. Biography of JKR by Sean Smith mentions she has a shoe-box filled with notes about Harry Potter - and that she planned the whole story as one - it's just that it takes time to type it all out and she has a life, too. And what comes to Rita- her original plan was to put her to Leaking Cauldron in the *first* book, but changed it to happen in book #4 instead. And Sirius too... But about foreshadowings - yes. How about bridges between the books? Letters: First book: lots of stolen letters and one that gives Harry partial freedom for the schoolyear. Second book: Stolen letters and one that threatens to eliminate Harry's partial freedom. Third book: Permission slip, mention of the letters Harry did recieve during earlier books, the second nullified, the first being *almost* enough for Harry's patronus; Letter from Sirius with the permission slip. Fourth book: Request of permission from Molly Weasley to take Harry into QWC, solved to Harry's favor due to the letter to Sirius Harry was writing. Hedwig's and Harry's increasing freedom: Out of the Owlery (As Harry got out of cupboard) - into a locked cage (Harry's room with bars) - Harry sends reluctantly Hedwig away and puts away his things (and a bit reluctantly frees himself, too) - Hedwig's out of the cage in magical world (Harry soon follows) - Hedwig on a mission to contact Sirius, this time Hedwig goes due Harry's *willing* choice, and Harry's willingly going to Weasleys and QWC. Now... Hedwig went to Weasleys *without* Harry in Book 3, and Harry went to Weasleys without Hedwig in Book 4. In book 4, Hedwig went to visit Sirius without Harry -- is Harry going to visit Sirius without Hedwig in book 5? Also, Dursleys-- First, Harry gets to go to due to Hagrid's direct influence, and magic used against them. They *do* however, object and try to act against the matter. Hagrid's magic lets Harry out. Second book, another friend comes for Harry, this time Dursleys don't know. Harry has a *bit* more stand, and with the help of his friends he gets out. Third book Harry stands up against them *himself* in anger. Fourth book-- Harry stands up against them calmly, but supporting himself with Sirius' existence. Just wondering *how* free Harry will be in book 5? Sirius being closer, Harry's more free than before... More and more hope for Harry getting to live with Sirius! -- Finwitch From chetah27 at hotmail.com Fri May 17 18:38:30 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 18:38:30 -0000 Subject: Draco as Darcy?/Draco Redeemable How? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38839 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: < Now, I realize that this is mostly Lucius' fault for > setting such a crappy example. But given that Draco is what he is, > and was brought up the way he was, what will motivate him to change? His > parents won't guide him to better behavior; neither will his friends. > His head of house can't do it without risking his cover, and his other > teachers are taking a hands-off approach. I suspect that if Draco is > to be redeemed, then life itself will have to be his teacher. Some > future sequence of events will have to break through his selfishness > and arrogance and force him to start caring about how his actions > affect other people. What would change him? I think something very large, something that would cause both mortification and a cause to wonder about his actions and the consequences that follow-- like say, perhaps, the death of his father? But, to further think about this: the death of his father *by Voldemort's hands*? That would definately shake some views implanted in the Malfoy family household(which I would LOVE to see happen). Since alot of people see Draco as being destined to follow in his father's footsteps(and from what we've seen, Draco has no objections in doing so) his father's death by this way might just make him see the light- that being on Voldemort's side isn't the surest way to power(which I think that's basically what his father has been implanting in him). Think about this: If Draco knew that Snape was a Death-Eater turned good, would he like/suck up to Snape so much? I don't think Draco's father let's him know about such things- he tries to make him see that everyone that follows Voldemort prospers, and those that don't suffer. Oh, perhaps that is a source for his hatred of Harry? Harry is a living defiment of Voldemort, and so perhaps Draco sees it as his job to make him suffer for it? *shrugs and hopes someone can make sense of that* > I think it's worth reiterating at this point that I'm not arguing > against the possibility of Draco turning good. I just think that > setting him up as the Potterverse Darcy glosses over his flaws and the > obstacles that stand between him and redemption. Ah ah ah, but Draco being the -Potterverse- Darcy has a small (amusing) something to it, I think. I don't think there's enough for a parallel, but they do have similarities. They both have that similar characteristic flaw- Pride. Each of them had it implanted in them because of their social status. Now I KNOW someone here has made the point about how Pride can't be associated as being good, and they used examples from the Potterverse- Lockhart, Lucius, Draco, Crouch, Voldemort, etc. It's just the way the Potterverse is set up- there has to be a somewhat clear distinction between good and evil. Draco is proud and ambitious- therefore he must be "evil" because of it. But as we saw at the end of GoF, things are starting to change in the WW(and especially, I think, at Hogwarts), and so this could be a setup for Draco's developing more as a character. But I think only something that will knock the proudness right out of him will cause a good change. Darcy, stung by > Elizabeth's accusations, goes off to do some soul-searching and voila! > -- returns as a suitable love interest. Why is he able to do it so > easily? Because he was a fundamentally good person all along, brought > up right from early childhood. Draco's been brought up very, very > wrong. In a way, I think comparing Draco and Darcy does Draco a > disservice; if he redeems himself, it will be a far greater feat than > what Darcy managed. Very true also. I don't see a parellel, just similarities that - could- mean someting(like possible redemption) and could not. But overall, I just find the theory fun to think about- Draco reformed and a romantic interest to Hermione? Oh, lol, very far-fetched as of right now, but I find things that are just thrown way way out there interesting- even if they are just plain impossible(although who's to say they're not plausible?). Pen Robinson: No: HPFGUIDX 38840 Pippin said: >If you leave the author's chosen viewpoint and go poking around >backstage as it were, you will find the illusion spoiled. It is like >looking at a backdrop up close. What seems realistically >rendered from your seat in the audience is quite impressionistic >from a few feet away. Try to re-create the Potterverse from >another character's point of view and you confront the fact that >much of Rowling's world is not realistically rendered after all. >Certainly the Slytherins are not. Erm...if we are looking at this from Harry's perspective, then how exactly do we know that the Slytherins really are as awful as Harry sees them to be? At the beginning of the SS/PS, Harry sees Hermione as an insufferable know-it-all who's incredibly annoying to be around, but we learned more about her later on and find that she isn't as one-dimensional as she first appeared to Harry. With someone like Draco its simply going to take longer for Harry to realize his character depths, whatever those might be. Who's to say JKR wanted to leave Draco and the Slytherins flat? ... He >can't very well explain to them that they are part of a literary >construct . No, but I'd pay to be in that class period ^_^ ... Pippin again: Are they Slytherins >because the Hat recognizes that at the age of eleven they are >"criminally incurable"? OTOH, if they aren't hard cases, why treat >them as if they were? I don't think Rowling can show us >Dumbledore or Hermione or anyone else trying to redeem the >Slytherins. Erm...wait-a-minute...Since when has the defining classification of Slytherin been incurable evil? Ambition, cunning, ruthlessness...all traits that *could* lead to evil, certainly, but not evil in themselves. True, Voldemort was a Slytherin, but wasn't Peter Pettigrew a Gryffindor? The only Slytherins we really see in action are Draco and his cronies, who are obnoxious to be sure but not what I'd call evil. There is an entire house of students there that we haven't seen. Ambitious: yes. Ruthless: sure. Prone to temptation: naturally. But all headed down the long, sliding path to Death Eater-hood? I don't think so. Why would they keep such a house around, anyway? Give JKR the benefit of the doubt. @_@ Headache!Sarah, who just finished AP Latin exam... _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From suzchiles at pobox.com Fri May 17 21:36:08 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:36:08 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Potterverse Coherence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38841 > -----Original Message----- > > I do wonder though, if JKR spent so much time planning and > structuring the series, why it is taking her so loooong to write OoP! > > Ali > I don't have the New York Times story about Book 5 handy, but I seem to remember that JKR said that she'd strayed a bit from the master plan in Book 4 and that had resulted in quite a bit of rework in Book 5's plot line and that's why Order of the Phoenix was taking longer. Zoe From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Fri May 17 21:46:23 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 14:46:23 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Can Character Change: A Separate Post Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38842 Heidi asked: Can character change? Cindy said: So let's change Ambitious!Ron to Ambitious!Percy or Ambitious! Hermione. Both of these characters have shown us plenty of ambition (although nowhere near the type of ambition I used in Ambitious! Ron), so I'd bet more people would buy those character changes. And in fact, some people have advocated them on the list, IIRC. I completely agree with this, and the other things Cindy has said about drastic character change. Ambitious!Ron ~could~ happen but there are few ways that would make it happen in a believable way that would keep with the integrity of the story. It's too far outside his character so far to make it a ~plausible~ change without a lot of new character information to lead up to it. I think if Ron became Ambitious!Ron the start of book 5 readers would be seriously put off by the inexplicable, or lame (magic-spell-made-me-do-it) reason. Ambitious!Hermione or Ambitious!Percy fit what we know about their characters so they ~could~ logically end up this way. For Ron, something like Unshadowed!Ron could happen if he gets noticed outside of Harry, or Mature!Ron for that matter. Studious!Ron is more likely than Ambitious!Ron simply because he seems more likely to study somewhat than make it all consuming. Cindy: >Is there sufficient ambiguity about something like Redeemable! >Draco? Well, to me, that's the key question. If there is some >ambiguity -- some clear reason to think he is good deep down or that >he likes Hermione deep down -- well, that would help a great deal. >Speaking for myself, I haven't seen it yet. Or, at least, enough of >it. I personally think that the only way Draco will be redeemed is if something happens to ~make~ him see how evil Voldemort's side is. One way would be if someone close to him was tortured and killed for instance. I personally haven't seen much in the way of courage from him, so simply the act of trying to make him a DE or hurting him could make him turn away from the dark side, or perversely, make him join out of fear. Unfortunately our views of Draco, like Snape, are limited due to the relative immaturity of Harry. A shifting POV might tell us something different, but that is unlikely to happen IMO unless it's the POV of a disposable character near Voldemort as with Ch 1 of GOF. With Draco, the likelihood of him being redeemed is directly linked, IMO, to what JKR has decided to put in his past. If he's a bully because he's really insecure and just needs a friend, maybe something can happen to make him friends with the trio. If, on the other hand, he's a spoiled brat who ~likes~ to hurt people and is truly power hungry then it's probably a hopeless cause. We simply don't have enough information to accurately judge right now. The other thing to consider when talking about character change will be the final outcome of the book. Would Ambitious!Ron or Ambitious!Hermione suit the storyline? IMO probably not. Harry needs loyal supporters, not people out for themselves so ultimately I think that they would not change this way. Could Redeemable!Draco help further the plot? Possibly, though not likely until near the end of the last book. I think Draco serves well as RivalPeer!Draco and it seems to be a likely place to keep him for quite some time regardless of what people would personally like to see. In the end, I think that if people want to see their preferred character changes happen, they're going to have to stick to reading and/or writing fanfiction where events of the past and present can be manipulated to suit the individual character changes. --Hana ________________________________________________________ Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus From fleurmellor at yahoo.com Fri May 17 21:21:16 2002 From: fleurmellor at yahoo.com (fleurmellor) Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 21:21:16 -0000 Subject: Hermione as mirror of Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38843 I read the post about Neville as a mirror of Harry > and found it > > really intresting and started to think of other > characters in the > book > > and their mirrors. I started thinking about > Hermione as a mirror of > > Snape. > > What got me started on this was reading Snape's > introductory > speach > > in PS/SS. I had read it loads of times but never > really analysed > it. > > When I got to 'even stopper death' I realised the > speach could be > read > > as a kind of Voldemorts wish list! for example bewitching the> mind and > ensnaring > > the senses, exactly what he did with the Imperius > curse to > control > > many of his minions, bottling fame and brewing > glory- when > Harry > > spoke to Tom Riddle in COS he spoke of creating the > name voldemort > to > > be become greatest and most feared wizzard, and finally, putting > a stopper in > death > > is exactly what he strived to do when he went > after the stone. > This list seems to be > > is what Snape deems as the most important > teachings of potions, a > > completely self surving list of power hungry > wants. I then thought > > about what sort of list another person would > compile to be the > best > > things about their chosen speciallity of magic, and > got round to > > thinking about Hermione and what a different brand > of teacher she > > would make to Snape. I realised that Hermione is > what Snape could > > have been if he used his intellegence positively > instead of > > guardedly and selfishly. The crucial point for > both of them is > when > > their lives where endangered and then saved, Snape > by the Marauders > > and Hermione by Ron and Harry. Snape chose to > think of what could > > have been, that he could have died and direct all > of his hatred and biterness upon > > the |marauders, Hermione was greatfull she thought > of her lucky > > escape, she used the experience to bond with Harry > and Ron and > become > > friends with them. If Snape had became friends with James after he saved him, he would be a very different character! ( I think friends with Sirius would be a bit too much to ask of him though!) > > > > Snape is judgemental and Cliquey, he judges Harry > as a bigheaded > > glory hunter before he has even spoke a word in > his class, he even > > seems to hate him on first sight because of his > parentage where as > he > > favours Slytherins reguardless of bahavior and > aptetude to his > lessons > > > > Hermione is Tollerent and enclusive, she has no > preconcieved ideas > or > > prejdudices, she is outraged at the treatment of > house elves which > no > > one else worries about because they are so happy > with their poor > lot. > > She supports Hagrid when she finds out his mother > is a giant, she > > knows that Lupin is a werewolf and covers up to > protect him. > > > > Hermione shares her knowledge with others and > makes every effort > to > > help, she helps Neville time after time in > potions, she helps > Hagrid > > prepare for Buckbeaks trial, she helps Harry > with whatever his task of the moment is. > > Snape is guarded and selective with his knowledge, > he loves to > > exploit other peoples ignorance of potions > (Neville) and is > furious > > when people help each other, he uses his knowledge > spitefully, for > > instance when he sets werewolf homework for the > DADA class > to 'out' > > lupin, Hermione uses her knowledge to help, Snape to ridducle and harm. > > > > Hermione creates unity, she is the peacemaker > between Ron and > Harry, > > she organises and arranges. > > > > Snape creates seperateness, he creates a gap > batween Slytherin > pupils > > and Griffindor pupils by shameless favoritism, he > splits up the trio > in > > his lesson more than once > > > > Hermione rises above her more unfortunate > physical attributes > (she > > is happy to live with her bushy hair rather than > speand ages on it) > > she is un-phased by the Slytherin girls teasing and > the articles > that > > Rita Skleeter writes about her, she is comfortable > with herself > > Snapes greasy hair yellow teeth become the sum of > him. His > > unpleasantness inside are manifested in his looks. Hermione is fiercely loyal and would do anything for her friends. Snape is a turncoat and a spy. he hasn't even loyalty to Dumbledore, we see this when Draco asks him if he will go for the position of headmaster in COS when Dumbledore is removed. He smirks and looks very pleased at this and takes no oppirtunity to defend Dumbledore, can you imagine what loyal Hermione would do in this position? Snape and Hermione both came to the school prepared with magical Knowledge for their first year, but whereas Hermione had researched Hogwarts and some usefull spells Snape had turned his energy to knowing more curses than most 6th years according to Sirrius. Hermione could easily be Snapes best student, she is top of practically every other class she is in, but instead he hates her from first meeting, branding her a know it all, and why does he hate her? because she is everything he will never be. Fleur *:)* From porphyria at mindspring.com Sat May 18 00:55:22 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 00:55:22 -0000 Subject: Hermione as mirror of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38844 Fleur has written: << I read the post about Neville as a mirror of Harry and found it really intresting and started to think of other characters in the book and their mirrors. I started thinking about Hermione as a mirror of Snape. >> This really intrigues me because I do agree that they have several specific things in common (intelligence, talent, a propensity to take academics seriously) and corresponding contrasts as well. To add another point to support your argument, I would say that each character is preoccupied with following rules and encouraging others to do so, however they do it in opposing ways. Hermione can occasionally feel OK about breaking rules if it's for the greater good; for instance she masterminds the whole Polyjuice plot in CoS because they are trying to solve the mystery plaguing the school. So she can ignore rules *when it makes sense to do so given the bigger picture.* Snape, on the other hand, takes sadistic pleasure in enforcing the rules even when they don't make any sense given the bigger picture. Hence he penalizes Hermione in PoA for helping Neville with his potion while he penalizes Harry in PS/SS for *not* doing this. So he takes the letter of the law to its illogical conclusion while Hermione adheres to the spirit of the law and abandons it when it does become, to her, illogical. [OTOH Snape does also try to enforce rules that do make sense, but he seems to be operating in a different mode when he does it for a good reason than when he does it just for spite.] However I have some quibbles with certain points of your argument, so for the sake of completeness I'll take them up. << What got me started on this was reading Snape's introductory speach in PS/SS. I had read it loads of times but never really analysed it. When I got to 'even stopper death' I realised the speach could be read as a kind of Voldemorts wish list! >> It is true that his list is of sweepingly power-hungry and self- serving uses for potions, but having taught school myself, I'd really like to add that you shouldn't judge someone entirely based on the spiel they give on the first day of class. :-) Snape is being dramatic here, he's trying to engage the class's interest; it's not clear that this is exactly what he wants out of life now. Well, maybe the fame and glory part, but I'm not sure about the stoppering death part. << The crucial point for both of them is when their lives where endangered and then saved, Snape by the Marauders and Hermione by Ron and Harry. Snape chose to think of what could have been, that he could have died and direct all of his hatred and biterness upon the marauders, Hermione was greatfull she thought of her lucky escape, she used the experience to bond with Harry and Ron and become friends with them. >> I like your overall point here that in one case having your life saved leads to an improvement in friendship while in the other case it leads to a worsening of it. Still there are important differences in each case that make this a bit of an apples and oranges comparison. I was always under the impression that Hermione wanted to be friends with Ron and Harry early in PS/SS and her bossiness and poking into their business demonstrated this. She cries when she finds out they don't like her. She lies in order to deflect McGonagall's wrath upon herself. I don't think her lying here or their subsequent friendship was based solely on her gratefulness; I think they fascinated her and the emotional impact of the troll encounter served to facilitate a set of friendships based on complementariness and mutual respect. Plus, when you start school at 11 you probably haven't formed lasting friendships yet after two months, so it's not incredible that Harry and Ron should have taken her in at that point. In any case, Snape already hated James long before the prank; they were 16 at the time and had five years to form an animosity. Snape didn't hate James because James saved him; he hated the experience because it put him in debt of someone he already hated, and this was humiliating. << If Snape had became friends with James after he saved him, he would be a very different character! >> People just aren't as pliant at 16 as they are at 11. He and James were already too different long before then. << Snape is judgemental and Cliquey <...> Hermione is Tollerent and enclusive... >> This is very true; you have some good points here. I would add that I imagine that Snape might have gotten over some of his intolerance from his DE days (directed against Muggle-borns, for example), but that's not entirely clear yet and your examples are sound. << Hermione shares her knowledge with others <...> Snape is guarded and selective with his knowledge <...> Hermione uses her knowledge to help, Snape to ridducle and harm. Hermione creates unity <...> Snape creates seperateness >> Also very good points. << Hermione rises above her more unfortunate physical <...> Snapes greasy hair yellow teeth become the sum of him. His unpleasantness inside are manifested in his looks. >> Here I'm not entirely sure what you mean. Do you think his unpleasant looks motivate his unpleasant actions? Upon what evidence? Or do you just mean thematically: Hermione is plain on the outside but pretty on the inside, while Snape is highly problematic inside and out? I do sort of see what you mean by this, but I think that Snape is also an example of 'looks can be deceiving,' seeing how he's often perceived as the villain when really he's working for good. So it's a little of each. << Hermione is fiercely loyal and would do anything for her friends. Snape is a turncoat and a spy. >> This is true regarding his old Slyth friends, but: << he hasn't even loyalty to Dumbledore, we see this when Draco asks him if he will go for the position of headmaster in COS when Dumbledore is removed. He smirks and looks very pleased at this and takes no oppirtunity to defend Dumbledore, can you imagine what loyal Hermione would do in this position? >> Here I don't see where you're getting this. I always interpreted this scene as an indication of how loyal Snape really is to Dumbledore. His answer to Draco is at worst cagey, but smirking aside, what he actually says is "Now, now, Malfoy...Professor Dumbledore has only been suspended by the governors. I daresay he'll be back with us soon enough." How on earth is that disloyal? That's pretty supportive. Granted Hermione (not to mention Hagrid) would have been much more unambiguous about defending him, but Snape seems to feel a need to keep Draco in the dark about that. I think the events of GoF rule out any question of whether Snape is truly loyal to Dumbledore, unless you make a case that Snape is really evil after all (as some people do ;-)). << Snape and Hermione both came to the school prepared with magical Knowledge for their first year, but whereas Hermione had researched Hogwarts and some usefull spells Snape had turned his energy to knowing more curses than most 6th years according to Sirrius. >> True enough, and here we could add another parallel that they are both very eager to prove themselves and show off their talent, but she does it in productive or benign ways and he, no doubt, wanted to creep people out in the process. << Hermione could easily be Snapes best student, she is top of practically every other class she is in, but instead he hates her from first meeting, branding her a know it all, and why does he hate her? because she is everything he will never be. >> Do you really think this is why he hates her? I've made long arguments in the past as to exactly how and why I think she annoys him, but I just don't see that he envies her a whole lot. He *is* a very different person from her, and I'm not sure he feels regretful about his nastiness at all (apart from when someone is throwing his DE past in his face). I don't think he wishes he were just like her. Also it's important to keep in mind that Snape represents a character that has gone through some sort of dramatic transformation, whereas there is no reason Hermione will ever do this. She has loosened up a little since her first yeah, but she hasn't gone through a dramatic change. So that's one way they aren't parallel. Still, thanks for bringing up this topic, Fleur! You raise lots of cool points. ~~Porphyria From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat May 18 01:16:47 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 01:16:47 -0000 Subject: Hermione as mirror of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38845 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "porphyria_ash" wrote: > Fleur has written: > << > What got me started on this was reading Snape's introductory speach > in PS/SS. I had read it loads of times but never really analysed it. > When I got to 'even stopper death' I realised the speach could be > read as a kind of Voldemorts wish list! > >> > > It is true that his list is of sweepingly power-hungry and self- > serving uses for potions, but having taught school myself, I'd really > like to add that you shouldn't judge someone entirely based on the > spiel they give on the first day of class. :-) Snape is being > dramatic here, he's trying to engage the class's interest; And I think it's important to remember here that half the class are Slytherins. :-) We don't know what kind of introductory spiel Snape gives to the Hufflepuff-Ravenclaw group. > << > he hasn't even loyalty to Dumbledore, we see this when Draco asks him > if he will go for the position of headmaster in COS when Dumbledore > is removed. He smirks and looks very pleased at this and takes no > oppirtunity to defend Dumbledore, can you imagine what loyal Hermione > would do in this position? > >> > > Here I don't see where you're getting this. I always interpreted this > scene as an indication of how loyal Snape really is to Dumbledore. > His answer to Draco is at worst cagey, but smirking aside, what he > actually says is "Now, now, Malfoy...Professor Dumbledore has only > been suspended by the governors. I daresay he'll be back with us soon > enough." How on earth is that disloyal? That's pretty supportive. When I was rereading CoS after having read all four books, I was struck by how nicely Snape juggles appearance and reality in that scene. His words are supportive, but he delivers in a manner that makes everyone who's listening believe that he's only faking loyalty; except he's not faking, he really is loyal -- but he can't afford to let Malfoy know this. It's quite well-played, really. Makes it easier to believe that he once made a successful spy. > << > Hermione could easily be Snapes best student, she is > top of practically every other class she is in, but > instead he hates her from first meeting, branding her > a know it all, and why does he hate her? because she > is everything he will never be. > >> > > Do you really think this is why he hates her? I've made long > arguments in the past as to exactly how and why I think she annoys > him, but I just don't see that he envies her a whole lot. Also, the conversation between Lucius and Draco in CoS indicates that Hermione *is* Snape's best student. He hates her, but still gives her a higher grade than he gives Draco. In fact, while Snape is always insulting and belittling the Gryffindors, he has never flunked one, not even Neville, and there's no evidence that he grades unfairly. (Interesting throaway bit at the end of PoA -- Harry discovers that he passed Potions, and immediately assumes that Dumbledore must've stepped in to keep Snape from flunking him on purpose. There isn't a single shred of external evidence to support this assumption, and I've always filed it away as just another (minor) example of Harry misjudging Snape.) Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From plumeski at yahoo.com Sat May 18 01:35:57 2002 From: plumeski at yahoo.com (GulPlum) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 01:35:57 -0000 Subject: Potterverse Coherence In-Reply-To: <4D56E32F.0CACD224.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38846 dfrankiswork at n... wrote: > My doubts concern the extent to which this is true *from book to book*. They are, I admit, based on the way I read the first three books, in turn based on my experience of the types of literature out of which HP seems to have sprung. If you read the Jennings series by Anthony Buckeridge (or any other school series), or the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett (or most other fantasy series: I except Tolkien, of course), it is obvious that you are reading a collection of episodes loosely linked together in the same fictional environment. In the school series there is usually not even any attempt to pretend that the characters are getting any older. I think this is where you're beginning to go wrong in your reasoning. The HP books aren't "just" "a collection of episodes loosely linked together" - there is a definite overarching narrative (of Harry discovering his past as he prepares himself for his - uncertain - future). Of course, that narrative is is many ways incidental to the individual whodunnit/mystery plots of each book, but at the same time, those plots help Harry (and us) learn more about how this world fits together, and Harry's place in it. Such an arc narrative is absent from most school fiction (at least most of the school fiction I ever read, and yes, that includes all of Jennings!). :-) The (boarding) school adventure genre is just a convenient way to have kids away from their parents and needing to fend for themselves, hence their need to resolve whatever adventures they have for themselves. I'm not aware of any school advbenture series where the main characters not only happen to grow older from book to book, but in this case it's an integral part of the storyline. The Trio do not behave in GoF the same way they did in PS/SS, for example. > In GOF, it never occurred to me that Polyjuice had been *foreshadowed* in COS, even after Crouch was revealed: I assumed that Crouch was not even a twinkle in JKR's eye when Hermione brewed Polyjuice for the first time. She just picked up something not uncommon in stories of magic and ran with it, then picked it up again and used it a bit more. When I read the books for the first time (for those who don't know, I'm one of those who considered the Potterverse beneath me until I saw the movie at a preview, and read the books in one go before the official premiere a week later) I was utterly LIVID reading the Polyjuice sequence. I thought JKR had gone totally barmy - why didn't the kids just use the Invisibility Cloak to spy on Malfoy? The whole morphing scheme was fraught with dangers which they simply had no need to overcome because they had the Cloak. An argument I've heard was they had no guarantee that they'd be able to find anything out without the possibility of prompting Malfoy. However, it took them two weeks just to make the Potion, never mind prepare for it - during that time, they could have been through Malfoy's belongings a dozen times under cover of the cloak. People were being incapacitated, but they're prepared to wait two weeks and depend on a hair-brained scheme that had a very small chance of success? It simply doesn't ring true. As an aside: one of the things with which JKR has a problem is the consequences of "off-screen" activity. The aftermath of PJ is one: After Crabb & Goyle are freed, how come Malfoy doesn't get to find out that they've been locked up in a cupboard? Malfoy is many things, but he's not utterly stupid: he'd realise that the conversation he just had wasn't with them. He'd raise merry hell trying to work out what was going on. Why do we not learn of this? Also, in PS/SS, when Filtch fails to catch Harry in the library, but encounters Snape & Quirrel, they go off together, to where? Surely their aim is to find the recalcitrant pupil who is not in his bed? How come Harry decides to go off (and find the Mirror), rather than make a bee-line for his bed before he's caught? How come Filch, Snape & Quirrel don't appear to take any further action? (end of aside) :-) The whole PJ sequence had one purpose, which was to let us know in great detail how difficult the Potion was to make and the conditions of its use. When the hows and whys of GoF come to be explained, we only need a couple of sentences to know *exactly* how The Plan worked (or was meant to have worked). And JKR, in mystery-writer mode, can laugh at us and say: "I already told you that this was possible in the Potterverse! Why didn't you see it coming?" You (and others) came up with various examples of cross-book foreshadowing, to which you prefer to assign "lucky accident" status. However, don't you think that JKR is having just a few too many of these lucky accidents for them not to be something more? As someone else has already mentioned, JKR spent five years planning the series before getting down to the nitty-gritty of writing out PS/SS. Of course, we don't know how detailed that plan is, but it seems that names, certain key events and some key plot elements were definitely in that. Various characters' personalities and their back- stories are part of that plan (otherwise it wouldn't be a plan, as those characters have to drive the over-all narrative!), and thus Snape's ex-DE status would definitely be among them. JKR knows who has and who will double-cross whom, and who has been and who will yet be faithful to whom. > In a similar vein, I had really hoped to see the centaurs again after PS, and Dobby after COS. COS disappointed me by dropping the centaurs so comprehensively: POA did not disappoint in either respect, because by then I expected to be short-changed. I admit that on a basic level, I was also a bit surprised that the centaurs didn't turn up during Harry & Ron's adventures in the Forest during CoS; however, it was made clear to us in PS/SS that they do not concern themselves with human affairs - Firenze came to Harry's aid in PS/SS largely because life in the Forest was being disrupted, and he saw Harry as a means to make life return to normal. The Forest status quo was not under threat in CoS, so they had no reason to get involved. I don't for a moment doubt that the centaurs will be back. Why shouldn't they be? Why do you expect them to have come back immediately, and to have felt disappointed that they weren't? One of the reasons I'm so sure is because Firenze was included (however badly) in the celluloid-creation-of-which-we-do-not-speak, whereas he could easily have been dropped. His presence was not required for dramatic purposes - Harry could've been saved by Hagrid. As we know, Columbus & Co had consulted with JKR on what could and could not be changed from the book, and this is one of the things that was not. I predict that Firenze (if not the other centaurs) will yet prove to have an important role. > There is certainly some evidence that JKR's world is less stable than we might like to believe. In COS, Dobby is presented as magically enslaved against his will, and his description of House- Elves generally implies that he is typical. In GOF, the House-Elves are presented as psychologically enslaved, with clothes a symbol of sacking, not a magical means of setting free. Someone else has replied to that point, but to add my own 5 knuts... I disagree with your summary of Dobby, and indeed the house-elves in general. Dobby is a rebel. The typical elves (as personified by Winky) have accepted their place in society - it's the way things have always been for them. Dobby is prepared to buck the trend and in this respect JKR-as-moralist is yet again making her point that we are defined by our choices, not by our circumstances. Dobby actively tries to make choices which will change his position. Of course he's going to describe himself as a typical elf, because that's how he sees himself! Of course, the other elves don't see him that way... As for the sacking -v- setting free, as the elves appear to be tied to a single master, aren't the two notions equivalent under the circumstances? Besides, from a slightly legalistic persepctive, they're not so much slaves as indentured servants (though I grant that in practice there isn't/wasn't a lot of difference in the real world); by being freed/sacked, they are indeed given their freedom to do as they choose, but their options are extremely limited. Dobby's seemingly unique perspective on this impasse is to treat himself as a free sentient creature and simply expect others to treat him that way. Of course, his social and cultural conditioning expects very limited freedoms, but his ultimate statement is that he is doing what he wants to do on his own terms, not those of others. > More worrisomely, in PS, Harry's survival of Voldemort's attack as a baby is presented as a mystery; in COS Harry can assert it was the effect of his mother's love but that Voldemort's loss of power is (still) a mystery; in GOF, Voldemort, who one presumes ought to know (again, I find it hard to believe that an Evil Overlord can go against the genre convention of telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth in his moment of boasting) confirms that this also was the effect of mother-love. Is this supposed to be a mystery or not? One would like to suppose (from the detective story point of view) that the 'mother's love' explanation is an artfully constructed red herring [from the thematic point of view I would like it to be the truth] in which Harry misunderstands Dumbledore's original explanation about Quirrell and goes on to unconsciously bamboozle a deluded Voldemort: however, is JKR up to it? Is any author? There are two aspects to this. I believe that what Harry, Voldemort and Dumbledore consider to be the reason why Harry *survived* is the only necessary truth: mother love saved him. That is no longer a mystery, and it took PS/SS to solve it. *HOWEVER*, this does not mean that there is nothing more to it (for us readers and for Harry), because the larger mystery is why Voldemort wanted to kill him in the first place. This is a question Harry has asked, but has been refused an answer (thus far, but has been promised that he will find out). And of course there is the reason why his failure to kill Harry caused Voldemort to lose his powers - I suspect that the wand-play at the end of GoF still has a role to play in this, but it is at present a mystery. I'm not sure why you feel that JKR isn't up to reolving these remaining elements, when she's good and ready to do so, in her own time and in circumstances she judges best for dramatic effect. Whyare you having these doubts? > So, is JKR a brilliant opportunist, or does she transcend the genres from which her stories spring? > > I would like to be convinced it's the latter, but I confess I am pessimistic. I certainly don't share your pessimism - If I did, I wouldn't have felt moved to pick up the first book (and then the further 3) after seeing the m*vie...I don't consider JKR to have "transcended" the genres, and I don't even consider her approach to serial writing to be particularly original of itself (Babylon 5, anyone?) :-) although the mix of allusions, her humour and the characters she's invented provide me with enough basic pleasure to remain interested. From elfundeb at aol.com Sat May 18 05:44:06 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 01:44:06 EDT Subject: TBAY: Memory Charm Neville Meets Reverse Memory Char... Message-ID: <17e.884de0f.2a174426@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38847 Debbie, working late again, is nodding off over a large tome, when suddenly there comes a tapping at her window. Glancing up, she sees not one, but two owls. Debbie opens the window whereupon two rolls of parchment are dropped gently on the table. One bears a sphinx seal. Debbie opens it and is astonished to find that Tough! Cindy has made a genuine offer of compromise in the case of Memory Charm Neville vs. Reverse Memory Charm Neville. Hmm, she's proposing a merger, to be entitled "The Double Memory Charm theory!" It states: And this is where I'm willing to offer up a compromise. [snip] Avery does the Memory Charm, but being a bit of a coward, he doesn't do a really *Big* Memory Charm. He takes a little something off of it because he doesn't want to hurt Frank's boy. But when Moody arrives, he and Crouch Sr. use a *monster* Reverse Memory Charm, which breaks through Avery's mini-Memory Charm and gets Moody an identification of the Pensieve Four. Debbie ponders this offer a moment, remembering an earlier brief in which she objected to psychological memory enhancement for our poor Neville. Then she opens the other scroll, whereupon she becomes quite excited. What's this? A Symposium on Memory Charms, to be conducted by the leading expert in the field! Swayed by the promise of continuing education credit, Debbie packs her things. Cindy's reply will have to wait until Prof. Elkins has her say. At the last moment, overcome by a fit of fashion consciousness, she grabs a shocking pink FEATHERBOA and throws it over her legal robes before heading off. ******************** Debbie sits quietly in the last row of the meeting room and scans the symposium agenda. Ah, her Memory Charms of choice, deemed too dark for some, will not be covered till the second day of the program. But her opponent's theory, the Reverse Memory Charm, is on today's agenda. Always wary of the refreshments, Debbie surreptitiously draws her water bottle out from under her robes, then turns to Prof. Elkins' program outline, and finds the following under "Reverse Memory Charm": > I mean, there's just so much to like here that I really find myself > *wanting* to believe in the Reverse Memory Charm. But I can't. I > just can't. There are far too many holes, most of which I've already > covered in my comments on the "No Memory Charm At All" Theory. > > See, I just can't believe that Neville has been walking around > reliving the horrible image of his parents being tortured into > insanity for the past four books. I just can't buy that. There's > far too much evidence to the contrary. There's his overall demeanor, > and his reaction to the Second Task's mermaid song, and his reaction > to the Dementor on the train -- Flipping quickly to the No Memory Charm at All section, Debbie realizes that Prof. Elkins has used one of her own arguments: > And then there's also the evidence to which both Debbie and Finwitch > alluded: Neville's behavior when confronted by the Dementor on the > train at the beginning of PoA. > > Neville and Ginny are there to > indicate to the reader that they do not have memories nearly as dire > as Harry's. > > Or that they are simply incapable of *accessing* them. > Debbie contemplates this for a moment, then concludes regrettably that, at this time, she cannot accept Cindy's offer. A shame, really, because Cindy is right over there, across the meeting room, wielding a very dangerous-looking paddle with what looks like . . . h'ors d'oevres? on it. And now Cindy is addressing the Professor directly. Debbie spots Avery sitting nervously at the far end of her row, prompting Debbie to review Cindy's offer again. Wait, what about this part?: Could one of the four Pensieve Four have Cracked and ratted out the group? Maybe, just maybe, the way Avery wormed his way out of trouble was by mustering the courage to rat out Mrs. Lestrange. He stands there silent in the Pensieve scene (well, there probably was some trembling and sniffing and sniveling going on that young Harry missed), knowing he has cut a deal to be sprung from Azkaban. Yes, that's why he didn't prostrate himself before Crouch Jr. like he did in the graveyard. That guilt certainly does give Avery good reason to Crack in the graveyard all those many years later, doesn't it? That's it, Debbie concludes. She'll concede Fourth Man Avery! But there are some pesky counterarguments to sort through first. Debbie wanders over to the refreshment table, where Cindy is helping herself to more Cheez-wiz, and asks for a word. Cindy obliges, no doubt expecting complete capitulation in light of her cogent arguments to our esteemed professor. But, Debbie points at Cindy's first argument: First, I always like to assume that Moody was involved in the arrest of the Pensieve Four. This explains Neville's terrified reaction to Moody, and it gives me a nifty way to explain the absence of Moody's leg and eye. It also explains Moody's absence from the trial of the Pensieve Four -- Moody was undergoing some *serious* physical therapy at the time. Debbie replies gently: "But Cindy, there is nothing in Cracked Fourth Man Avery that negates Moody's involvement. The Pensieve Four did indeed cause those injuries. But it was dear, Tough-as-Nails Mrs. Lestrange, when Moody finally cornered her and her catatonic husband and smoked them out of their hiding place. Have you seen her fingernails? Three inches long, curled and painted black to match her hair. Took that eye right out. As for Avery, he was indeed caught by Moody, right at the Longbottom house. But being a SYCOPHANT (but a Tough one at times), he surrendered, meekly as a lamb. And poor Neville, newly freed of memory, transfixed his eyes on Moody's nose and soaks that memory right in." Debbie pauses for Cindy to take this in. Her eyes wander across the room, where she spies Avery drifting off to sleep. After a moment, however, Cindy points to her second argument: Now, I doubt that Real Moody would resort to a Cruciatus Curse to get Avery to Crack. Sirius says, "[Moody] was tough, but he never descended to the level of the Death Eaters." Now, Sirius was either in Azkaban or possibly hunting down Peter when the Longbottoms' torture occured, so maybe he is unaware that Moody used the Cruciatus Curse to get Avery to Crack. But I rather doubt it. "Explain that," Cindy replies. Debbie begins, fingering her FEATHERBOA, "You're right, of course. Moody didn't use Cruciatus on Avery." Cindy displays a look of satisfaction. "But I'm not finished. Moody is a dark wizard catcher. Avery was turned over to Crouch Sr. and his minions. And old Barty has a problem on his hands, worse than he ever had when Voldemort was around and the populace expected violence around every corner. No, the WW has gotten used to the calm by now, and the Longbottom attack has shaken their confidence. Barty knows he needs convictions to calm everyone down. He's got to break Avery. Is it legal? Of course! Barty himself "authorized the use of the Unforgivable Curses against suspects." And he's not descending to the DE level, no siree, it's a narrow exception in pursuit of justice for all and peace across the WW." Cindy nods again, but points to argument number 3: Besides, Sirius tells us exactly how Avery wormed his way out of trouble: "From what I've heard he wormed his way out of trouble by saying he'd been acting under the Imperius Curse." Sirius also makes it clear how Karkaroff gets off -- he "did a deal" with the Ministry. So Sirius definitely knows the difference between getting off by claiming Imperius and doing a deal, so I think it's fair to assume Fourth Man Avery didn't turn in his accomplices. "Ahh," Debbie says soothingly, "But Cindy, you've forgotten the basis for my willingness to entertain the parallel universes where Avery is and is not Fourth Man. The Imperius defense doesn't add up, so you can't believe everything Sirius says. His information is thirdhand, acquired years after the events in question. He has to be wrong about Avery and the Imperius Curse. But we *could* get there. Maybe that's exactly what Avery did. Just a little Crucio was all it took, and our man Avery starts babbling all about how the DEs used the Imperius Curse to make him take them to visit the Longbottoms. But he still has enough wherewithall to make a deal. (Avery conveniently omits the Memory Charm he performed on Neville, as it has not been discovered.) Crouch & Co. thereupon make a deal with Avery. He will be formally convicted with the others, when found (Crouch can't appear soft and let him off when the public is crying *Send them to the Dementors*, but Avery will be quietly released on the way to Azkaban in exchange for his cooperation." Cindy contemplates these irrefutable arguments for a moment. Debbie observes Avery, who woke with a start at the fifth mention of his name and began to eye them suspiciously. Cindy, however, whips out the draft of her reply brief, and points to a citation. GoF, ch. 27, "Padfoot Returns," in which Sirius stated that Crouch Jr. was caught with a group of DEs who'd managed to talk their way out of Azkaban. Cindy is pleased with herself now. "Two is not a group! So Avery couldn't have been caught beforehand." Cindy stands quietly, waiting for Debbie to capitulate. But Debbie is enjoying her FEATHERBOA, so she refers Cindy back to the fact that Sirius isn't always right. This is thirdhand information, and whether it was a group or a pair is a very insignificant detail, unlike, for example, how Avery was sprung from Azkaban. Silently agreeing to disagree, and seeing Avery striding toward them now, Cindy and Debbie move across the room and take seats, Cindy in a MATCHING ARMCHAIR, Debbie in a small but sturdy meetingroom chair. After tossing the FEATHERBOA over her shoulder, Debbie draws Cindy's attention to her acquiescence to the arguments in favor of Memory Charmed Neville: > 3. Then there's the idea that Fourth Man knew the Longbottoms and > used that relationship to set them up. Ooooh, my FEATHERBOAS have > become rather perky at the very idea of this. Debbie is right that > this is *tremendously* Bangy. > > If you'll > just give me Avery as Fourth Man, I can produce an ear-shattering > Bang for you -- bigger than Fourth Man Anonymous Friend. If Avery > is Fourth Man and knows the Longbottoms, imagine the looks on their > faces when they swing open the door, expecting Avery to present them > with a nice hostess gift and a plate of his special homemade > brownies, only to be staring straight into Mrs. Lestrange's heavily- > lidded eyes. Oh, there's no time for escape at all under that > scenario, is there? > > And what of poor Neville? Oh, he is a bit of a night owl and is > toddling around. Mrs. Lestrange doesn't bother to knock him out or > anything, because she's planning to kill him once she has the > information she needs. But Avery stops her from killing Neville or > killing the Longbottoms either. Avery was raised right and knows it > is really *rude* to kill the host and hostess after an evening at > their home. Avery proposes a Memory Charm on the kid. Mrs. Lestrange agrees, persuaded by Avery's plea that Mrs. Lestrange recruited him for this mission by *promising* no one would get hurt. Debbie looks Cindy straight in the eye, straightens her FEATHERBOA and says, "Exactly right, up to this point, but I just can't buy that Reverse Memory Charm. However, I will agree to live in the Fourth Man Avery parallel universe if you will agree to leave that wobbly MATCHING ARMCHAIR. Instead, I offer the following: Just as Avery raises his wand, there is a ruckus at the door. Avery, nervous Avery, gives the wand a tremendous wave as he shrieks out "Obliviate!" leaving our poor Neville a veritable tabula rasa. The door swings open. It's Moody, who manages to sweep up all four suspects, but at the price of an eye and a leg. A Big Bang to end the day. Just like you imagined it. Could you live with that?" Cindy opens her mouth to reply. Just then she hears the good Professor Elkins say: > Break time, she says? "Anyone else want to find the nearest bar? I've had enough of that Kool-Aid. In fact, I'm rather suspicious of Kool-Aid." Debbie takes another swig from her water bottle and heads off with Cindy to look for the bar, FEATHERBOAs trailing behind. The others, heartily sick of Kool-Aid and Cheez wiz, follow. For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% 20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Sat May 18 10:12:42 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 10:12:42 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Memory Charm Symposium (3 of 3) (Long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38848 Three shall be the number of the Symposium posts, and the number of the Symposium posts shall be three! Yes. Well. Let's try this again, shall we? ----------- All fortified now? Good. Because now we're going to be delving into those theories that assume unquestionably venal motives underlying Neville's memory charm. Here is where we get into all of those callous cover-ups, spiteful spell-castings, and family failings that are, let's face it, just ever so much more *fun* than all of those sappy well-intentioned memory charm theories. Flying Hedgehogs abound once we get into this territory, and the degree of explanation necessary to outline the canonical support goes waaaaaaaay up. So I'm going to be doing a lot of message number citation in this last segment, as many of these theories are not only far too complicated, but also far too beautifully defended elsewhere for me to feel that I can really do justice to them in summary form. This last part of the symposium deals with the Cover-Up At the Ministry, the DEPRECIATION, and the Memory Charm Most Foul theories. There's quite a bit of overlap between these three, admittedly, but for the purposes of analysis, I have attempted to draw a few bright lines to distinguish them from each other. Ready? Okay. First up on our list is... ********************************************************************* --The "Cover-Up At the Ministry" Theory-- (Otherwise Known As: "Longbottomgate," "We Was Framed!," "Rounding Up the Usual Suspects," "Bad Aurors," The "Palace Intrigue" Theory.) Neville was placed under a memory charm by someone at the Ministry, in order to cover up the fact that one (or two, or three, or perhaps even all four) of the Pensieve defendents were innocent of the crime for which they were sent to prison. The real culprit(s) are still out there. At large. And many within the Ministry *know* it. But they just don't care. Not because they're Death Eaters or anything like that, mind -- that would be DEPRECIATION -- but rather, because they're too busy looking out for their own interests to worry about trifling little matters like the public weal. --------------------- There are quite a number of variants on this theory. Nearly all of them focus on the canonically-derived notion that in the wake of the Longbottom Incident, the Ministry was absolutely *desperate* to get a conviction in order to appease the mood of the mob and thus to avert a public relations disaster. The canon here mainly derives from Chapter 30 of GoF, "The Pensieve," in which the extent to which the mood of the crowd defines the judicial process is strongly emphasized, as is the lynch-mob atmosphere presiding over the trial of the Longbottoms' alleged assailants. This alone would probably have sufficed to alert the reader to the possibility that the Ministry had been under a great deal of pressure to get someone, *anyone,* put away for the attack on the Longbottoms, but just in case we missed the implication, JKR then makes it explicit in Dumbledore's conversation with Harry shortly thereafter: "'The attacks on them came after Voldemort's fall from power, just when everyone thought they were safe. Those attacks caused a wave of fury such as I have never known. The Ministry was under great pressure to catch those who had done it. Unfortunately, the Longbottoms' evidence was -- given their condition -- none too reliable.'" Dumbledore then confesses to Harry that he has "no idea" whether Crouch Jr. had really been involved in the affair at all. The secondary canon for Cover-Up derives from Sirius' description of Crouch Jr's arrest in Chapter 27, as well as from his description of the status of the young man's co-defendents, generally assumed to be the Lestranges and...er, Fourth Man. Sirius, too, expresses doubts as to young Crouch's guilty verdict: "...he might have been in the wrong place at the wrong time..." More to the point, though, Sirius also describes the Lestranges and Fourth Man as "a group of Death Eaters who'd managed to talk their way out of Azkaban," and as "people I'd bet my life were Death Eaters." So a picture begins to emerge here. We have a Ministry of Magic that is absolutely desperate to get someone convicted of this crime. We have as the only two eye-witnesses the victims themselves, a couple of gibbering wrecks unable to provide any reliable testimony. We have a Department of Magical Law Enforcement still filled with Aurors who, if Sirius is to be believed, have grown accustomed to operating according to somewhat less than stringent standards. And then we have the Lestranges and Fourth Man, who from the ambiguity in Sirius' description of them would seem to have been people who even at the time were widely believed to have been Death Eaters who only escaped justice in the first place on the basis of some lame legal technicality. If they are the same age as Snape, then they would have been very young at the time as well. Young enough, perhaps, that they lacked much in the way of political power or social clout? That seems likely enough, particularly in the wake of Voldemort's fall, when possible patrons like the Malfoys would presumably have been keeping their heads down. They *do* begin to look like appealing suspects, don't they? Very appealing suspects. Particularly for a Department of Magical Law Enforcement that is desperate to get a conviction, and that has been known to ignore due process in the past, when it has suited its purposes. Did someone in the DMLE decide to go with What Was Easy over What Was Right when it came to closing the file on the Longbottom Incident? Did someone then put a Memory Charm on Neville to cover their tracks? Eileen objected to this theory on the grounds that it provides insufficient Bang. After all, she wrote, we the readers already *know* that the Ministry is corrupt, so for this to be the great revelation Neville has to offer would be a total Dud. Eileen: > If Neville snaps out of the charm and yells, "Corrupt Cover-up," no- > one will bat an eye. True enough. Ah, but the Bang in *this* theory, you see, isn't really the revelation that the Ministry is corrupt at all. Nor is it the identity of the perpetrator of the Memory Charm itself. It doesn't really matter who in the Ministry might have performed the actual spell. No, what *matters* in the context of the Cover-Up At the Ministry is the question of just who the real culprits in the Longbottom Affair were. Who *were* those secret DE torturers for whom the Lestranges and Fourth Man were willing to take the fall? They must have been pretty *important* secret DE torturers, right? So who were they? Someone we know, surely, because otherwise it would be a Dud. So could we be looking at an Ever So Evil Moody here? An Ever So Evil Minerva McGonagall? An Ever So Evil Dumbledore? Oh my, could it be that Neville's own dear Herbology mentor is actually the Ever So Evil Death Eating Sprout? Or could we be overlapping with Memory Charm Most Foul here, to give us an Ever So Evil Granny Longbottom, or an Ever So Evil Bent Uncle Algie? Why, the possibilities for Big Loud Bangs are just *endless!* Porphyria remained unconvinced: > See, this is fun. But I'm not quite sure what would have gone on. Well, that all depends on which version of the Cover-Up you favor. The most extreme version of this theory, "Rounding Up the Usual Suspects," proposes that not *one* of the Pensieve Four was really guilty of the charges against them. Although they were indeed cognizant of a DE conspiracy to restore Voldemort to power and likely involved with the plot in some other capacity, they were not the Longbottoms' torturers. In this scenario, the fact that Crouch's own son just happened to be hanging out with the Usual Suspects on the night that the Aurors battered down the door is viewed as nothing more than a horrible coincidence, a complication which no one could possibly have foreseen. Nor, of course, could anyone in the Department possibly have foreseen that after the trial and the conviction and the verdict, the Longbottoms' son would turn out to have seen something, or perhaps heard something -- something that, if anyone ever found out about it, would absolutely require that the verdict be overturned and the search for the Longbottoms' *real* assailants begin once more. I mean, we're talking total public relations nightmare here. A political disaster. Particularly if Crouch Jr. had already ostensibly died in prison and his father's fall from power begun. So. Memory Charm. Problem solved. Porphyria objected to the full frame-up theory on the grounds that Mrs. Lestrange actually confesses her guilt in the Pensieve scene and would seem to be confessing not only on her own behalf, but also on behalf of the entire party. She wrote: > In the Pensieve scene, Mrs. Lestrange admits to the guilt of her > party, doesn't she? Well, she certainly does admit to her own guilt. Who precisely she means to include by her use of the first person plural, though, is something that I've always found fairly ambiguous. "He will rise again and will come for us, he will reward us beyond any of his other supporters! We alone were faithful! We alone tried to find him!" Does that "we" really refer to all *four* of the defendents, do you think? Or is it, perhaps, only meant to refer the three of them who have *not* been sitting there shrieking hysterial denials and pleas throughout the entire sentencing? I can read it either way. I can also read it quite comfortably as a use of the marital "we," in which case she means to include only her husband in her boastful confession. But at any rate, there's no question that she admits her own guilt. She not only admits it, she *proclaims* it. Proudly. Defiantly. And in a manner that seems designed to strike fear -- and perhaps even a slight stirring of reluctant admiration -- into the hearts of all those who witness it. Just like Good Terrorists are supposed to do. *Especially* when they're claiming responsibility for an act that they did not in fact commit. I mean, aren't fanatical members of terrorist organizations notorious for doing that? That's par for the course, isn't it? It's a terrorism trope. It's very nearly a cliche. Porphyria: > 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? Well, as we don't know all that much about her, it's a bit hard to say. But assuming that she is indeed loyal, strong-willed and fanatical, and that while innocent of the attack on the Longbottoms, she nonetheless *was* cognizant of or involved with a DE conspiracy to seek out Voldemort and restore him to power, then I imagine that her reaction might well have been to do whatever she could over the course of her trial to draw as much attention to herself as humanly possible, in the hopes that she might leave absolutely _no doubt_ in the mind of the tribunal that they had caught the entirety of the conspiracy, thus leaving her unknown but still-at-large colleagues with a much clearer field to seek out their fallen master without having to worry about any Aurors out searching for them. Anyway, that's probably what I'd do, if I were brave and loyal and slightly mad, and had a fanatic's faith in Voldemort's power. If I were not only brave and loyal and fanatical, but also rather clever, then it occurs to me that I might also go out of my way to *exaggerate* all of my defiance and pride and True Warrior Spiritedness -- just to provide a clear example to the convened tribunal of what a Real Death Eater is supposed to look like, and thus to plant seeds of doubt in their minds that hysterical little Barty Crouch could *possibly* really be one. I can easily imagine Mrs. Lestrange figuring that young Crouch is the only one of the four of them who stands even the slightest chance of getting off the hook and so doing what she can to improve his chances. Not only might this enable him to walk free, which since he *is* a loyal DE devoted to the cause would be a Very Good Thing, but it might also harm his father's career, which because his father is a loyal Ministry official and an Enemy of the Cause would be an Even Better Thing. Certainly I do find the Pensieve defendents' reaction -- or, rather, their utter *lack* of reaction -- to Crouch's hysteria at the sentencing extremely interesting. They don't respond to him at all. They neither back him up nor try to debunk his claims of innocence. They even resist the temptation to hiss a quick "shut up" in his general direction. All three of them simply ignore him completely. It does serve to bolster the impression that perhaps he really wasn't involved, and I sometimes find myself wondering if that might not have been their very intent. Porphyria: > 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. You think? See, I'd say that she has nothing to *gain,* myself. Given the mood of the court, I don't think that anything that she did or said would have kept her from being sentenced to life in prison, and I suspect that she was well aware of that. So she had absolutely nothing to gain by trying to proclaim her innocence, but if she really is as fanatical and devoted a follower as she seems to be, then I'd say that from her own perspective, she had absolutely *everything* to lose. I mean, voldemort is coming back, right? One way or another, he's coming back, and when he does, he's going to reward the faithful and punish the faithless. And taking the fall for your colleagues (whom presumably she believed would continue the search for their absent Master, rather than abandoning it) certainly ought to count as loyalty worthy of some great reward. No, Mrs. Lestrange's behavior in the Pensieve scene isn't really all that troublesome for me when it comes to my willingness to run with the full-fledged frame-up theory. I could live quite happily with that. The *graveyard* scene, on the other hand, is a different story. It is very difficult, IMO, to parse Voldemort's lines in the graveyard in any manner that supports the idea that all four of the Longbottom defendents were sent down the river as a frame-up job. Fortunately, however, in message #36889, Debbie proposed an even Darker and Dirtier -- and also *far* more blackly humorous -- version of the full frame-up job than the rather pedestrian "Usual Suspects" spec, and this one does offer some possible explanation for both Lestrange's confession and Voldemort's praise in the graveyard, as well as providing one possible defense for young Barty Crouch's insistence that his loyalty to Voldemort never wavered, in spite of all of his pathetic squealing at his trial. Debbie suggested that Aurors not only framed the Pensieve defendents, but that they were *themselves* the Longbottoms' torturers. And that they were responsible for the Longbottoms' current mind-blitzed states, as well, because what's really wrong with the Longbottoms, you see, isn't that they were tortured at all. It's that they were very badly *Memory Charm'd!* Ooooooh, those Bad Aurors! Debbie also dangled the tantalizing suggestion of inter-departmental rivalries within the spook divisions of the MoM before our amazed eyes: > Frank may have had information on people that would shock > us. . . .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. She then got herself up to quite a bit of dark mischief by proposing a scenario in which ruthless Aurors, either because they suspected that Frank Longbottom was a DE double-agent or because they worked for a different division and were keen to know what their rivals were up to (and perhaps also driven by a touch of envy over Frank's massive popularity?), were right in the middle of interrogating their colleague by torturing him, and his innocent wife, and even possibly their blameless young son... And even possibly their blameless young son? Boy. You guys really do have nasty little minds, don't you? You know, I've run right *out* of FEATHERBOAs? That's how vicious and unkind you people are. Shocking. So anyway, Debbie suggested that just as the Aurors were right in the middle of perpetrating atrocities on the entire Longbottom family, that was when the Pensieve Four (who in this version are only "innocent" by virtue of having been beaten to the punch by the Bad Aurors) showed up at the exact same location -- and with the exact same plan in mind. Panicked, the Aurors fired off Memory Charms at the Longbottoms and fled. Debbie: > 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...[DEs] 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. . . .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. And of course, it's easy enough for the Aurors to whip up a compelling case against the Usual Suspects, isn't it? After all, the Usual Suspects really *were* there that night -- the Aurors saw them there themselves. And they really *had* been planning to question Longbottom about Voldemort's whereabouts, so all of those "to-do" lists and the like that they left lying around on the dining room table make for pretty good evidence against them. Well! You know? I just have to say this. I absolutely *love* this theory. I am floudering in a sea of hopeless envy over here, wishing that I had come up with it myself. It just has everything, doesn't it? It has wicked Aurors and dirty politics and tragic medical misdiagnoses...and it's even got that lovely bit of farce, with the DEs coming knocking on the door, and the Aurors getting big eyes and whispering, "Uh-oh. Cheese it! Someone's at the door," and then the Usual Suspects walking in to find that their expected victims have, well, already been victimized, which I imagine must have *really* freaked them out, and... And, well, yes. Black farce. You *know* how I feel about black farce, right? Also, by my careful snipping, I have even obscured one of the best parts of Debbie's theory: namely, that it is completely Schrodingered. It works equally well as a DEPRECIATION theory. All you need to do is to switch the positions of the Usual Suspects and the Bad Aurors, and you've got yourself a workable version of DEPRECIATION, with an option on a Memory Charm Most Foul side-dish of Evil!Gran. Ah, flexibility! The hallmark of great speculation. Mainly, though, what impresses me here is the extremely compelling canonical defense that Debbie provided for the notion that what afflicts Neville's parents may not be trauma at all, but a Memory Charm. Having first brought up all of the usual objections to the Longbottom subplot -- that the Longbottoms' amnesiac state is simply not in the least bit believable as a normal human response to extended abuse, that it seems even more unlikely that *two* people should have responded in precisely the same idiosyncratic way to trauma, and so forth -- Debbie then wrote: > 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. Wow, Debbie! Yeah, so do I. I think that you may just have sold me on this idea. Memory Charm'd Mr. and Mrs. Longbottom really does makes perfect sense to me, and it also provides for quite the opportunity for Banginess later on. Just think of all the dirt that Frank Longbottom might be able to spill, if only he could, well, you know. Stop drooling for just a little while. "Bad Aurors" also fixes many of the holes that "Rounding Up the Usual Suspects" falls headlong into. It explains why the Pensieve defendents seem so utterly convinced of their loyalty in being the "only ones" who were loyal enough to go looking for Voldemort: because in fact, they were. No additional conspirators are necessary, as they are in Usual Suspects. It also explains why Voldemort himself seems so convinced of their loyalty. After all, who knows that those Bad Aurors beat them to the punch anyway? No one. Except for those Bad Aurors themselves, that is -- but they're not talking. The problem that I can see with this, though, is that it leaves the Bang potential just a little bit Duddy. If there were no DE conspiracy, then what could the great shocker revelation when Neville or his parents are finally freed from their memory charms be? That the Ministry is corrupt? That some Aurors (whom we don't know and don't care about) are Evil, Evil, Evil? To give this one a good Bang, I think that you either have to return to the DE conspiracy (in which case you're left with the problems of the graveyard scene) or to assume that an Ever So Evil Alastor Moody was one of those Bad Bad Aurors. Not, of course, that I ever have a problem with Evil!Moody. The full frame-up varieties of the Cover-Up At the Ministry are certainly a good deal of fun, but the less extreme versions are far more easily defended. The idea that young Crouch was actually innocent, for example, has ample enough canonical support that many readers have found it an instinctive reading. If we assume that Crouch Jr. was innocent, then it is very tempting to suspect that his implication might have been engineered as a political attack on his father. This, the "Palace Intrigue" Theory, was the possibility that I was hoping to suggest when, in response to Finwitch's suggestion that young Crouch might have been innocent after all, I wrote: > 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? No sooner had those words passed through my proverbial lips than Dicentra immediately leapt forward, blurting in a state of great excitement: > I'm not ready to claim that Fudge tortured the Longbottoms, but > I'll always vote for him covering up something evil. Heh. Why, yes! I thought that Dicentra might like this idea, for some wacky reason. ::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.:: Yeah. You know, I try, I really do try, to resist the seductive lure of Ever So Evil Fudge. I fight against it with all of my might. See, I'm just way too fond of reading Fudge and Crouch as literary doubles in GoF, and that reading goes all to *pieces* once you start wagging your finger at Fudge and crying "FIE!" It really does. It throws everything hopelessly out of balance. But all that said, I have to admit that poor old Cornelius really *does* make by far the most appealing culprit for this particular version of the Ministry Cover-Up Theory. As Debbie wrote: > 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? He certainly is the most likely candidate, isn't he? He was working within the Ministry and therefore might well have had just enough insight into Crouch's character to guess that if Crouch's son were implicated in the affair, Crouch would behave precisely the way that he did. He also was working for the Department of Magical Catastrophes at the time. The DMC might well have been the division that was first called in to deal with the mess that the Longbottoms' assailants had left behind. If Fudge were first on the scene, as he was in the Sirius Black affair, then that would have placed him in an ideal position to take stock of the situation, realize that Neville was the only person present in any condition to reveal the truth of what had transpired, and then to take the appropriate action to ensure the boy's silence. And of course, most damning of all, Fudge is the one who benefitted the most from Crouch's political fall. Debbie: > ....it's possible that the real problem with the Longbottoms is > that either (a) the Memory Charm was botched, Lockhart-style, so > they lost their entire memories, or (b) the MOM attempted to break > their Memory Charms so they could testify but in doing so damaged > their minds beyond repair, as happened to Bertha Jorkins. And so > the MOM claimed that the Cruciatus Curse caused their insanity, to > cover their own tracks. This would make their evidence *seem* quite > unreliable. Oh, my! Okay. So what if we propose that *this* is in fact the memory which the Ministry was so very keen to remove from Neville's mind -- not the memory of vile DEs tormenting his parents but rather, the memory of his parents' relatively coherent behavior after the original attack, but before they were then broken completely by the Ministry's ham-handed attempts to smash through those memory charms? That's pretty dire, all right. Mainly, though, I like it because it offers the possibility that once Neville finally figures out what's up, he will respond by becoming... Yes! You guessed it! An *iconoclast,* that's what. An enemy of the status quo. A revolutionary. He will lead protests against the MoM. He will distribute pamphlets and fliers and badges. He will agitate for reform. He will join an anarcho-syndicalist commune and dye his hair strange colors. He will jaywalk for the fun of it and stay up far too late at night. Aw, come on, guys. Let me have my dreams, won't you? ********************************************************************* --DEPRECIATION-- ("Death Eaters Provoked a Really Evil Charm-Induced Amnesia to Incapacitate Our Neville") Neville was given his memory charm by a Wicked Death Eater, in order to prevent him from giving testimony or in some other way exposing the culprit's true identity. The reason that Neville's memory is in such bad shape is because the perp used a truly *massive* Memory Charm on him...just to be on the safe side. After all, Real Death Eaters Aren't Compassionate. --------------------- Ah, Depreciation! Such a classic Memory Charm approach, with so many dire and paranoid and vicious variations! Where to begin? Well, first off there's the Classic version of Depreciation. This one proposes that Neville was a witness to the assault on his parents, and that he therefore was given his memory charm by one of the perps, to prevent him from being able to finger them to the ministry. It's got the weight of tradition behind it, this one does. But as with that other fine old classic, the Well-Intended Memory Charm, it has come under a great deal of attack. Really, everyone raises pretty much the same objections to this theory, as it has some obvious continuity problems. If the DEs had known that Neville was there, then wouldn't they have subjected him to the same treatment as his mother in their efforts to persuade Frank to talk? If so, then wouldn't he be in the same catatonic state as his parents? And even if for some reason he weren't (perhaps due to the resiliency of youth?), then why on earth wouldn't the DEs simply have killed him, if they were so worried about the possibility that he might give them away? All very good questions (although they do also beg that troubling and even IMO somewhat FLINTy question of why the DEs didn't kill the Longbottoms themselves, once they had finished with them). Tabouli wrote: > 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 > action 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? Agreed in full. Classic Depreciation has never made very much sense to me, either. Even Debbie's marvellous "Oh, no! Someone's knocking on the door! Let's Memory Charm them for now, and then finish the job later on" speculation works far less well for me in its DEPRECIATION version than in its Ministry Cover-Up manifestation. I can easily believe that Bad Aurors might have thought they'd get a chance to continue with their interrogation later on and so might have smacked the Longbottoms with a couple of killer Memory Charms. But I can't even begin to imagine how a group of Death Eaters could have thought that they'd get such a second chance. No, the notion that Neville's Memory Charm was cast on him to prevent him from fingering the Pensieve Four to the Ministry just doesn't work for me at all. Far more workable, I think, are the variants that assume that Neville's Memory Charm was intended to prevent him from revealing the identity of some Death Eater *not* among the Pensieve Four -- someone who possibly didn't even realize that Neville had witnessed something important until quite some time *after* the after the fact. But who could this person have been? Ah. Well, that's where it starts to get interesting. Cindy suggested that the culprit might have been none other than Real! Moody himself, whom Neville saw tampering with a bit of evidence at the scene of the crime in order to help to cover up for the Longbottoms' assailants. Cindy: > 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. . . .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. Mmmmmm. It definitely has possibilities. It explains, for example, why Neville should have seemed so very frightened of Crouch/Moody in GoF. It also allows one to assume that Neville *never* witnessed his parents being tortured, thus averting all of those pesky little problems with the Second Task Egg's mermaid song, and the Dementor on the train, and so forth. And yet, it still has quite a bit of Bang potential, particularly as JKR has already promised us in interview that Real!Moody will be a character in his own right in later volumes. Yes indeed. It does, however, take quite a bit of juggling to reconcile with the fact that neither Crouch Jr. nor Wormtail nor Voldemort himself seem to have the slightest *idea* that Real!Moody is in fact a Death Eater. Fortunately, Cindy's already taken care of this problem. For her full canonical defense of Secret Death Eater Moody, see message #36829. In brief summary, she there suggests that Real!Moody was actually one of Rookwood's people, and that therefore although he was indeed an ally of Voldemort's, Voldemort himself was unaware of this fact, as were the vast majority of his Death Eaters. The irony abounds, naturally, once Crouch and Wormtail and Voldemort are all overpowering their devoted ally Moody and shoving him into a trunk. If you don't care for Ever So Evil Moody, though, then how about Ever So Evil Frank Longbottom? Caroline risked a yellow flag violation by suggesting that the Longbottoms were never tortured at all, but instead are under the influence of Insanity Curses, with only Neville having been given a memory charm. But why was he given a memory charm? Merely to prevent him from blabbing about the identity of the Lestranges et al? Not precisely. You see, in Caroline's DEPRECIATION theory, Frank Longbottom was Ever So Evil. (Message #36825) Caroline: > 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!) I'm always happy to accept an innocent-of-torture-Crouch-Jr option. The nice thing about this one, to my mind, is that it implies that deep down in their heart of hearts, the DEs have Neville mentally filed away as a future ally. (It can therefore be nicely reconciled with TOADKEEPER II, if you are so inclined.) It also provides acceptable answers to all of the usual questions raised by DEPRECIATION theories. Why don't the DEs want to kill Neville? Well, because he's Longbottom's heir, of course, and while Frank did unfortunately turn out to be just a wee bit unreliable when it came to his wife, he was on the whole a good and loyal Death Eater, and the others would like for his son to follow right in his footsteps (only without that pesky reliability problem) when the time comes. So why wipe Neville's memory of the event at all? Well, really! The lad is hardly old enough to appreciate the sad necessities of Evil Overlordship at the age of *two,* is he? Children can get a little bit funny about their parents being cursed sometimes. If he could remember what really went down, it might just turn him against the Cause. So best just to keep the truth from him for now. The full story can be explained to him later, when he is old enough to understand such things and ready to take up his father's mantle of Devoted Death Eating. (We might want to call this one the "Human psychology? Oops! I forgot!" approach to long-term DE planning.) I'm sure that there are many other revisionist DEPRECIATION variations out there somewhere, just *waiting* to be proposed. Anyone? Anyone? Finally, although I've such huge problems with classic DEPRECIATION, Amanda did come up with a spin on it that I love so dearly that I am unwilling to reject it out of hand. I'm therefore hoping that I might be able to snatch it right out of the Classic DEPRECIATION context in which Amanda first suggested it and instead stick it into a different theory altogether. Amanda wrote: > 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. Ooooooooh, Amanda! I *really* like this, although I can't see how Crouch could have done so in the classroom. I don't think that he would have had time, for one thing -- Neville's already standing in the hallway when the Trio emerge from the room -- and for another, Neville seems if anything *more* in touch with his memories in the hallway than he does later on, when Harry runs into him again in their dormitory. Neville is indeed acting loopy and Mr. Robertsish in the hallway, but he is also quite evidently distressed, and he seems to be absolutely terrified of Crouch/Moody. I'm therefore more inclined to view his loopiness there as a symptom of his latent memory charm having activated in response to his own attempts to fight his way through it. But what if this happened during Crouch/Moody and Neville's little tea party? That tea party goes on for an awfully long time, doesn't it? Neville seems to have missed out on lunch altogether. And when Harry runs into him in the dormitory afterwards, there is a strange incongruity in how Harry perceives him. On the one hand, Harry thinks that Neville "looked a good deal calmer than at the end of Moody's lesson." Harry also notes the touch of pride in Neville's tone as he relates what Crouch/Moody told him about Sprout's praise for his work in Herbology class and deduces from it that Crouch/Moody has "cheered Neville up." On the other hand, Neville still doesn't look entirely "normal" to Harry, and his eyes are red -- he has obviously been crying -- and although Harry doesn't notice it, he lies awake for much of that night. So how does this sound? Let us suppose, for the moment, that Crouch was *not* in fact the original caster of Neville's Memory Charm. Someone else was. Who it was is up to you -- you could go for a Ministry Cover-Up, or a Spontaneous Magic approach, or even a classic well-intended Memory Charm. It really doesn't matter, so long as you maintain two assumptions: that Neville did indeed witness his parents' torture, and that Crouch Jr. was one of the perps. Let us also assume that Crouch *knows* that Neville has a Memory Charm. He learned about it, let us say, at some point during all of those years he spent hanging around in Daddy's kitchen under the Imperius Curse. Crouch knows that Neville has a Memory Charm, which as far as he's concerned is a Good Thing, because even though he's polyjuiced and one heck of an actor, the possibility that the kid might recognize him *still* makes him a little bit nervous. As well it should. Because in DADA class, his demonstration of the Cruciatus Curse doesn't just upset Neville. (Upsetting him would be fine; Crouch likes that sort of thing.) It also seems to...trigger something. The kid isn't just acting upset. He's acting like someone whose memory charm might just be *degrading.* Crouch was a terrific student in his day, and so he knows his charms. He recognizes all the signs: Neville's _remembering_ something, and he's also giving Crouch/Moody all of these terrified looks...could he possibly be *onto* Crouch somehow? Could he possibly have recognized him even through the polyjuice disguise? Was there, perhaps, something horribly *familiar* about that look of relish in Crouch's eyes while he was practicing his Cruciatus on that spider? Something that triggered a memory? Perhaps. At any rate, Crouch is taking no chances. He drags Neville (who looks as if he thinks he's being led off to his execution -- as indeed, perhaps he really does) off to his office, and he gives him a Memory Charm. But memory charms only work properly for discrete events, so Crouch has to make a judgment call here. Is he going to try to reinforce the original charm? No, that's far too complicated: since he wasn't the one who cast it in the first place, he doesn't know precisely what it was initially designed to suppress. And besides, his immediate problem isn't really that Neville might remember something about the attack on his parents. His problem is that in spite of his polyjuice disguise, Neville seems to have been struck by the suspicion that he isn't really who he claims to be. Crouch figures that the spider is probably what gave him away, so he casts a memory charm designed to blitz that half of his DADA lesson right out of Neville's mind. He casts it, and then he spends the rest of the afternoon chatting up Neville about his heroic Auror father, and about his Herbology lessons, and about whatever else he can think of that might reinforce the notion that he is *Moody,* and that he's really a very nice fellow underneath that gruff exterior. So Neville is indeed cheered when Harry sees him again in the dormitory, because he is no longer haunted by the notion that there is something horribly familiar -- and something very very *bad* -- about the new DADA Professor, and because he's just been chatted up by an old buddy of his Father's, and because he's just been stroked about his herbology talent. But he's also disturbed, because his memories of the entire afternoon are fuzzy, and because since his original memory charm really *is* degrading, these sort of fugue states are already becoming more and more frequent occurrences for him, but not usually this *bad,* I mean, he's lost like the entire *afternoon* this time, and oh God it's just getting *worse,* isn't it, and how is he ever going to pass all of his classes if this sort of thing keeps up anyway? And on top of all of that, he's just hit puberty, and he thinks that Hermione is cute. I mean, I'd lie awake at night too, if I had to deal with all of that. And of course, the reason that his eyes are red is because the instant that Crouch/Moody got Neville alone in his office, the poor kid went all to pieces. He probably snivelled and pleaded and begged and all sorts of embarrassing things, but that's okay: he can't remember a bit of it now, so he's feeling absolutely no shame. And boy, did Crouch enjoy it, while it lasted! So you see, that part of the afternoon was really win-win for everyone. There. How's that? Does that work for everyone? What's that? You think that it's a little bit...what? Twisted? Sick? Oh, please. You don't know from sick. You want to hear *sick,* then we're going to have to move on to... ********************************************************************* --Memory Charm Most Foul-- (Otherwise known as: "A Family Affair," "Something Rotten In the State of Denmark," "Amnesia Begins At Home," The Skeletons In the Closet Theory, and "Ever So Evil Granny Longbottom") So what is this hidden knowledge anyway, this secret so very dire that Neville cannot, will not, or *must* not look upon it? Well, that's obvious, isn't it? Someone in Neville's family circle must be culpable. Very culpable. No other explanation will suffice. ------------------------ For purposes of classification, I have adopted "Memory Charm Most Foul" as the umbrella designation for all of those theories which propose that whatever afflicts Neville's memory *must* be chalked down to something ugly festering away at the heart of the Longbottom family dynamic itself. Porphyria made a strong case for viewing this approach as not merely canonically supported, but indeed as thematically inevitable. Porphyria: > 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. She cited her reasons for believing that Harry himself is on a collision course with discovering some quite unsavory things about his own family, and then concluded: > 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. And so, if we read Neville as some form of literary double to Harry (as indeed I think that we must), then whatever afflicts Neville's memory *must* have something to do with some ugly secret involving his own family, yes? Yes. Of course, one might well argue that *all* of these theories already incorporate this thematic thrust perfectly adequately, dealing as they do with the sorry fate of Neville's parents. But mere victimization is just not *ugly* enough for the Memory Charm Most Foul adherents. Nope. Not ugly enough by half. Memory Charm Most Foul people insist that it must be worse than that. Much worse. Memory Charm Most Foul theories, much like their benevolent counterparts, the Classic Well-Intended Memory Charm theories, focus overwhelmingly on Neville's grandmother as the culprit. In these theories, however, her motives are not good. They are not good at all. I was startled -- startled and a little bit bemused -- to realize that *I* was in fact the person who started people off on this train of thought, with all of my nattering on about the significance of the Snape boggart dressed in Gran's clothing. I mean, my goodness! I was just thinking about the cultural demands of the wizarding world! But Porphyria came to a somewhat different conclusion. Porphyria: > 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? And then Eileen waxed positively Shakespearean on this subject: > Porphyria has an even worse theory about murder, murder most foul, > as in the best it is, but this most foul, strange, and unnatural... > The murderous DE grandmother: a little more than kin and less than > kind. Ever So Evil Gran. What else can one say? Of course, dear old Gran does not *necessarily* have to be a DE in a Memory Charm Most Foul Spec. As Eileen wrote: > 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? And indeed, in Porphyria's own Memory Charm Most Foul, dear old Gran isn't at all a Death Eater. She's just, well, a little bit venal, that's all. A little bit greedy. A little bit selfish. And a whole lot culpable. I would not dream of attempting to summarize Porphyria's Memory Charm Most Foul theory here. Suffice it to say that it involves a frustrated and dispossessed Granny Longbottom, desperate to get her hands on a piece of the Longbottom estate which, to her great dismay, was left entire to Frank. It involves a SHIP between Gran and Lucius Malfoy. It involves an explanation of how slippery old Lucius managed to get his hands on all of Tom Riddle's old school things in the first place. And it makes Gran directly responsible for the fate of her son and his wife. It is message #36840. And I solemnly swear never to call Porphyria "canonically pure" again. Some people, though, just weren't *content* with Venal!Gran. No. No, they wanted Gran to be a full-fledged Death Eater. People like Debbie, for instance, who not only made a case for Gran-as-DE, but also insisted on a DEPRECIATION scenario in which Gran herself was one of the Longbottoms' torturers. Debbie: > Assuming [Neville] 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. Mmmmmmm. Yeah, okay. Actually, I can buy this. In fact, this may well be the *only* version of Classic DEPRECIATION that I find believable. I am not willing to accept that Crouch, or the Lestranges, or Fourth Man (regardless of how Remorseful he might later have become), or any other group of random Death Eaters would have cast a memory charm on Eyewitness Toddler Neville, rather than just killing him outright to prevent him from squealing. But if one of the DEs was his own *grandmother*? Yeah. Yeah, actually, you know, I really *can* buy that one. After all, they may be Very Bad People, but they're still *human,* right? I can accept the notion that even an Evil!Gran evil enough to torture her own son into a state of raving lunacy might nonetheless have prevailed on the rest of her party to spare her grandchild's life and use a Memory Charm instead to ensure his silence. Because you *know* how people can get about their grandkids. Debbie's Evil!Gran gets herself up to quite a lot of mischief, actually. She is the one responsible for keeping her son and his wife in their state of incurable amnesia. Debbie: > 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. She's the one responsible for Neville's constant state of befuddled forgetfulness: > If so, she's probably refreshing Neville's as well. And she's also the one who has for years been coldly and deliberately subverting his self-esteem: > 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. Ah, yes. There's just nothing quite like family, is there? Evil!Gran, whether she is a full Death Eater or merely an accomplice, certainly is a promising notion. She is thematically consistent with the rest of the series. She explains Neville's nervousness at the prospect of having his boggart turn into her. She is easily reconciled with TOADKEEPER II. She is Big, and she is Bangy, and as Porphyria pointed out, she wears a stuffed *vulture* on her hat, for crying out loud! How can one resist? And of course, she also fits in wonderfully with the Spontaneous Magic Theory. What motivated Neville to wipe his own memory? Merely the trauma of seeing two of the people he loved the most tortured? Nonsense! It was the trauma of realizing that two of the people he loved the most were tortured into a state of insanity because of one of the *other* people that he loved the most! Small wonder he doesn't want to remember anything. Or to accept the vengeance-driven warrior ethos of his own culture. Or to grow up to become a big powerful wizard. Porphyria: > 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. Yup. There you have it. Neville. He's effectively an orphan, his memory is shot, he's got a crazy Great-Uncle who tries to kill him all the time, he's not good at sport, he's not good at schoolwork, his social skills are minimal, he's scared of just about everything, he has to visit his drooling catatonic parents in the hospital over all of his holidays, he dresses funny and he's pudgy and no one really wants to go to the Ball with him and he gets no respect from either his peers or his teachers and he has an unfashionable pet who may even be an Evil!Spy... But hey, that's okay! Because sooner or later Neville's going to *kick* that Memory Charm of his. And when *that* happens, Things Are Going To Change, all right. When *that* happens, we're going to see some serious worm-turning action. Because when *that* happens... Well, when that happens, then Neville will discover that his one and only responsible caregiver, whom he loves more than anyone else in the world, is actually an Ever So Evil Death Eater who helped to torture his parents half to death and has in fact been deliberately keeping him in a state of helpless amnesia for all of his life! So don't worry. Be happy. ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> <>(("> Well. That about wraps it up, I think. Except, of course, for all of those new Memory Charm theories that have hit the Bay of late. Double Memory Charm. Memory Charm meets Fourth Man. Not to mention, of course, the Ever So Memorably acronymed T.N.R.A.M.C.N.T.S.H.P.B.T.A.F.A.S.E.T.U.D.W.O.I.T. Somebody else can deal with those. I'm going to bed. -- Elkins, toddling away from her lectern and hoping that somebody else will take care of the clean up, because otherwise there is just no way that the Museum is *ever* going to give her that deposit back. For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypothe ticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From pen at pensnest.co.uk Sat May 18 09:59:32 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 10:59:32 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Draco, perspective, Why Ask Why? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38849 heidi (replying to me) wrote: >Has there been such talk? I hadn't noticed. I've been talking about >Draco being something other than evil, possibly becoming a three >dimensional character in canon, and the reasons why I don't think a >relationship between him and Hermione in canon would necessarily be >impossible but none of those things make him into a romantic hero. Hmm. Obviously I was misled by the comparison of Draco to Fitzwilliam Darcy. >Pen also wrote: >> what are these fertile signs >> that Draco Malfoy is >> going to be a reformed character Real Soon Now? >I also haven't seen anyone who argues that Draco might end up >something other than evil say it'll happen Real Soon Now - I certainly >don't expect it to be obvious before Book 7, and perhaps towards the >end of that (although I expect him to move toward something other than >evil during book 6, if not book 5, but I don't think the reader will >learn about it until Book 7). All right, let's leave that Real Soon Now in the irony box where it belongs. However, I think if Draco is to be redeemed/redeemable, he certainly ought to start to show signs of the possibility in book six at the very latest, otherwise it is going to be very hard to believe. I don't mean that he has to do Good Things vis a vis Harry, necessarily, but we need to perceive him behaving in a manner that can be understood as something other than mean, spiteful and cowardly. [NB: Snape was introduced as perfectly horrid in PS, but by the end of that book we had learnt that he was not completely vile, because he had undoubtedly saved Harry's life. Thus the subsequent discovery that Snape is actually working for Dumbledore's cause is believable, even though Snape is still unpleasant.] >Absolutely true, and I think that's because Snape is *now* on the side >of good. But clearly he wasn't always - Dumbledore even says that >Snape *was* a Death Eater but by the time Voldemort fell, he was a >spy. In other words, he had chosen to become a Death Eater, but made a >subsequent choice to spy - not that he had joined the Death Eaters >*as* a spy. To state it another way, he was once on the side of Not >Good, and changed his mind. My point is that we have been *shown* Snape's complexities, his good side as well as his bad. If the stories were about James Potter instead of Harry, we would (presumably) have seen Snape as a bad guy who redeemed himself at some point towards the end of the story - but if there were no hints early on that he had the potential to be redeemed, it would be unsatisfactory. At this point in Harry Potter's story, we haven't had hints of Draco Malfoy behaving in a way that would hint at his redeemability. Perhaps they will come - perhaps at some point Draco will reveal that he had sound, understandable reasons for, say, not turning up for his duel with Harry, for trying to get rid of Hagrid, and for calling Hermione a 'mudblood'. At such a point, we can re-read his previous actions and reinterpret them, just as the revelations about Moody/Crouch make it possible to understand his behaviour in a new light. However, as things stand, there doesn't seem to me to be any way to understand Malfoy except as a nasty, mean-spirited boy, who shows promise of turning into a nasty, mean-spirited man. (What do we think Vernon Dursley was like as a schoolboy?) >And I can point again to Draco's warning the Trio to get out of the >area during the World Cup. That action can certainly show good intent. >How could it show malicious intent? It's possible that it shows >cowardace (if he was unwilling to take on Ron and Harry at the same >time to call the Death Eaters' attention to Hermione) but that doesn't >mean it also showed malice. Umm... I suppose it could show good intent. I read it as a sneer. [Pause while I attempt to look up the scene. Can't find the book, drat.] But if a 'Reinterpretation Of Draco's Actions' is coming, that could be a candidate. Is it the only one? >I think it's important, now, to go back to the first of my recent >posts on this matter: ><better match for Hermione, as Elizabeth Bennett, than anyone else >could be. Yes, I admit it's a big if... but they've both got a bit of >growing up to do, and it could happen. >> A better match than anyone else? How about Ron or Harry, who have been flawed but consistently on the side of Good, and are thus far more convincingly like Darcy than a reformed Draco could possibly be? Pen From pen at pensnest.co.uk Sat May 18 10:22:35 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 11:22:35 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Can Character Change: A Separate Post In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38850 Zoe H wrote: >> -----Original Message----- >> Some argue that Sirius has gone from being a prankster and >> possibly somewhat unconcerned with the lives and mental health of >> those around him, to being very concerned with his Godson's well >> being. > >I think it's a mistake to categorize Sirius based on just what we know about >the "prank". As of the end of book 4, we know nothing about Sirius before >the death of James and Lily Potter. My view is that if James and Lily asked >to be their secret keeper, he must have been a trustworthy person. Which he >was. Actually, we do have some ideas about Sirius before the deaths of the Potters. We know by the end of PoA that Sirius - along with James and Peter - cared a great deal about Remus, was not influenced by anti-werewolf prejudice, and took an immense amount of trouble to do some very difficult magic (ie the Animagus business) in order to provide comfort for his friend. We know he was one of the two cleverest students at Hogwarts in his time there. We know he was inclined to be a rule-breaker (he was, after all, one of the makers of the Marauders Map) but was not generally thought to be malicious. We know that there was serious loathing between him (and the others) and Snape, and that the Prank happened - and we haven't had a very clear account of what exactly happened, or how, or why. We know from Madam Rosmerta, in the scene with the discussion between Hagrid, Fudge, McGonagall and Flitwick, that Sirius and James were very close. We know that the adults who knew him as a schoolboy were astounded that he, of all people, could have gone over to Voldemort - so obviously, although he was a mischievous and high-spirited boy, he was generally believed to be on the side of the angels. So we have plenty of reason to accept the transformation of 'Evil Siriu sBlack the Murderer' into 'Good Sirius Black the Avenger' by the end of PoA. His subsequent, calmer behaviour as Harry's godfather in GoF is reasonable, I think - in one who has proved his innocence to those who matter most, who has been free of the torments of prison for some time, and who is now in a position to undertake his responsibilities to some extent. >I seriously doubt if anyone reading this list would care to be categorized >by one stupid thing that they did when they were 16. It wouldn't be fair. >Nor, in my opinion, is it fair to diss Sirius. I think the Prank adds complexity to Sirius, because it was something he did which could have had terrible consequences and which he doesn't seem willing to admit as a fault. (I very much hope JKR gives us a bit more background on it - though in case she doesn't, I have found a couple of linked fanfics which have become, pro tem, part of my 'personal canon', as they seem very satisfactorily to explain the motivations and mechanisms involved.) It makes it apparent that if Sirius doesn't like someone, he is capable of doing that person great wrong without thinking through the consequences. He does the same with regard to Peter Pettigrew, doesn't he - wants to kill him, without realising that a dead Pettigrew is a far less convincing witness to Sirius' own innocence than a live one. And without recognising that vengeance is not the same thing as justice. Still, I agree - it doesn't make sense to categorise someone solely on the basis of one stupid thing he did as a teenager. Pen From meboriqua at aol.com Sat May 18 13:09:11 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 13:09:11 -0000 Subject: Draco Redeemable How? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38851 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Pen Robinson wrote: > I don't say that a nasty and spiteful schoolboy can never deserve > forgiveness, can never be reformed, but I don't so far see any evidence that underneath it all Malfoy has a basically worthwhile character.> For me, it's not so much that I believe Draco will be redeemed (even though I do have hope for that), but that I have a hard time seeing him go down his father's path. I just don't know if Draco has it in him to get his hands that dirty, so to speak. To make a strange parallel, I see some of the things Draco has done to be somewhat similar to Sirius's behavior back when he was a student at Hogwarts. Maybe Sirius wanted Snape dead, maybe not - but we know he thought he was playing one hell of a prank on Snape for being such a disagreeable classmate. The real consequences of his actions may not have been thought out. Draco seems to me to be very much like that now. He is looking to get others in trouble, not necessarily to see them die. In PoA, I think he really wanted to give Harry a good scare when he dressed as a Dementor, and he wanted Hagrid to get fired because Draco doesn't like him, particularly as a teacher (nor do I blame him there). I don't think Draco was thinking far enough along to wonder what would really happen to Hagrid if he lost his job, or what it is really like for Harry - or anyone other than Draco - to suffer through the Dementors' effects. We already know Draco is a tattletale; he runs to his professors whenever he has the opportunity (the dragon in SS, and the invisibility cloak in PoA). He's a sniveling brat, yes, but a coldhearted and cruel Death Eater? I have trouble with that. As terrible as this may sound, it does take some sort of bravery to do the things the DEs have done. I see them as (and I won't mention these words more than once!) as Nazi-terrorist types. Terrorists may not, in our eyes have the kind of courage that we admire, but they have *no* fears. Draco, OTOH, seems to be scared easily enough. We all know he was terrified when he had to go into the Forbidden Forest, and when he was first scratched by Buckbeak, he moaned and groaned like he had had his intestines pulled out. He is usually on the sidelines, not in the thick of it, and I think the thick of it will be hard for Draco Malfoy to take. He's all talk, but not a lot of action, and it has been my experience that the ones who talk the loudest and the most are the ones who can perform the least. Time will only tell if Draco will go the good or bad route, but I think he'll play it safe and stay right in the middle. He may, at some point, do something to protect himself or to avenge his father or mother's suffering (because I can definitely see a scenario where he is a witness to his father's undoing), but to join the DEs and be a faceless, cloaked torturer? Nah. Or to, through whatever series of events, decide that "mudbloods" and Harry should be his very special friends? I don't think so. Or, if he does change sides the way Snape has, Draco will probably be as nasty as Snape, but won't be as brave. Like I said, I see Draco always standing on the sidelines, watching and snickering. --jenny from ravenclaw ** From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Sat May 18 13:02:10 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 13:02:10 -0000 Subject: Draco, perspective, Why Ask Why? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38852 After recieving the last (and my first) digest, I was quite surprised about the desire of the members for Draco to change. Why should he, do we need him to? I think a lot of this might be to do with the Draco Dormiens, Draco Sinester and the latst in the series of those fanfics (I may be wrong). Anyway this is an aside to my primary point. I think Draco will change. However not as presented here. Draco!Corpse anyone. I think it would be a more powerful tool to see Draco die, we have seen him whineing at his father (in Knockturn ally), we have seen him display none of the maturity or poise that his father demonstrates (bar the sock\diary throwing incedent) in getting into fights and gloating (in the Slytherin common room anyone) and I principally see him as a spioled brat - for want of a better term. This is not someone The Dark Lord wants or owuld trust on his side. Also I feel that the death of the son of one of his closest supporters would paint Voldemort as black as he has been painted so far. JKR seems to like surprising us with his cruelty and depravity, the unicorn blood, the framing of Hagrid (one of the books most loveable characters), and the death of Cederic. Where from here - killing the capricious and unreliable son of his closest supporter would be a start. Also it would have a very interesting effect on Lucious, and/or possibly Narcissa. They would make a far stronger ally than Draco. I think Draco will become more layered (the conflict with his father is all ready there for developement) but I really like the idea of Dead!Daco, as much as I like the living version. Have fun with it, James From jillyharris at triton.net Sat May 18 14:03:26 2002 From: jillyharris at triton.net (Jilly Harris) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 10:03:26 -0400 Subject: SHIP: Draco Redeemable How? References: Message-ID: <3CE65F2E.F5ED716@triton.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38853 jenny_ravenclaw wrote: > He's a sniveling brat, yes, but a coldhearted > and cruel Death Eater? I have trouble with that. (Note: I just want to state that this is only my opinion on this, nothing more. :) ) My first notion that Draco is redeemable is this. If he were a cold hearted individual who didn't care about anything cause he thinks his daddy can get him out of anything, he would have struck Hermione back when she slapped him in PoA. He didn't. He didn't even COMMENT. He sorta stared at her, mumbled to Crabbe and Goyle to come on, and left them standing there. Yes he was probably VERY astonished that she did that, but first instinct when you are struck by someone is to strike back. He never made the motion to do so. If he were not redeemable or cold, or even a future Death Eater, I honestly think he would have hit her back. She's a mudblood, someone supposedly beneath him. About the Draco/Hermione Ship discussion: I'm a Draco/Hermione shipper. Do I see it canonly? I see hints that it could happen, but do I think it will? No. I LIKE odd pairings. I read my first Draco/Hermione fic because I was curious as to how they managed this one. If you enjoy fanfic, both writing and reading, I think this particular ship is interesting to read to see the different ways they get the couple together. And most use the whole term of "There is a fine line between love and hate." I DO think that Draco/Hermione is a bit more realisitic then Draco/Ginny is. Whereas Draco "hates"Hermione because of prejudice cause she is a mudblood, she is Harry's best friend, and is the top witch in her grade, Ginny epitomizes everything Draco has been brought up to hate as well. His father and Ginny's father immensely dislike each other. Ginny's father has no problems with Muggles, they are poor, and Draco has made it his life to torment the Weasley's more than Hermione and Harry. Though some can argue that the Draco/Ginny ship could be a Romeo & Juliet parallell. I prefer Ginny/Harry fics if Ginny is with anyone over Draco/Ginny, but that's a personal preference of my own. :) I honestly think that Draco is a bit jealous of Hermione, mostly for two reasons. Draco tried to become friends with Harry their first year (albeit the wrong way) but Harry instantly disliked him. Harry also instantly disliked Hermione, but now they are best friends. Strike one against her for jealousy. Hermione also has the top spot that Draco wants to please his father. Strike two against her. How these two could get together I have no clue, unless they are forced to work together for a long period of time and realize, away from other Slytherins and other Gryffindors, that they aren't bad after all. That's my $0.02 on that. :) Jilly From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Sat May 18 13:47:06 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 13:47:06 -0000 Subject: Potterverse Coherence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38854 There are two simple points I would like to raise with the issue of coherence in the Potterverse. Firstly the books are meant for children. When I saw 'acio' being practiced in class - and then the solution to the first task(well half of it) I thought it obvious and telegraphable, it was the same for my reaction to Ron and the Wizard Chess, or to the re-use of polyjuice poition. There are only a limited amount of things she can explain, chlidren are not adults. They are lead into a concept before it is fully exploited. The wonder of the books is that they patronise so little, this is partly by introducing concepts in a natural environment, rather than explaing in words of one sylable during the course of the action. Secondly, the main characters ARE children. It is entirely reasonable that they take weeks completing a complicated plan and miss the obvious. Furthur to this it is entirely psycologicaly sound. The trio want to believe that Draco is responsible. They hate him. So they decide on a plan that will not only take time (allowing them to cling to their unfounded belief longer) but also one that has a high possiblitiy of failure (so they need never find out at all). When they eventually, and to their credit, succeed (two out of three ain't bad) they are very disturbed to find out they are wrong. I think the solutions are retro fitted to the plot, we read in a straight line - they are not written that way. If a spell is needed then the backstory is fitted earlier. If a character is important, then a titbit is added earlier. JKR says she re-wrote the first chapter several times because it gave too much away - she has also written the last chapter (I've seen it, not the text, in a documentary). She will add details and people in current\future books so the end makes sense. Not foreshadowing but reto-fitting. Also (and my pedentic side somes out here) she doesn't have a shoebox full of notes - it's more like a mountain, including sketches(sp?). Again seen in the documentary. This has come across as rather confrontational, it's not meant that way. I apologise for any possible offence, but stand by my points. James (a ravenclaw for sure) From jmt59home at aol.com Sat May 18 15:08:36 2002 From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 15:08:36 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Toadkeeper, evil Gran and not-so-bent Algie Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38855 *Runs to the lecturn* After the amazing posts on the memory charms... *Ducks as as various objects and abuse are hurled* *not another theory Dog, that's the third one this week!!!. shouldn't you be doing revision. whip cracks.* Sod the revision, this is much more intresting!!! *Looks around nervously for other Mdmm students, pulls hood over a little more* I'm not saying that I altogether agree with the evil Gran theory but if it is true then Great Uncle Aglie may not be as bent as we thought. To save me writing everything out, can everyone please turn to page 93 of PS where Neville talks about his family. Read carfully! This is the only time Algie is mentioned. Let us see, if Evil gran wanted the Longbottom estate then she would need Neville alive because it would be to suspicious if he was dead, but if he was a squib, then he can't inherite anything magical. As his guardian, it would go to gran. Gran is not a Longbottom by blood, I will, for this theory, assum that Algie is, probably a younger brother to her husband. Great Uncle Aglie (G.U.A.)must have seen a lot of Neville to try and force magic out of him. He is already suspicious but has no proof. He is keeping regular checks on Neville, he and his wife went TO Neville's after all. Just in case. When Neville can do magic, Gran cries. That has always struck me as odd, it doesn't seem right for her somehow. But there still is not threat to her as he may not be magical enough to inherite (like Flitch, remember Neville says in COS almost a squib). Back to PS "You should have seen their faces when I got in". One very relived Uncle Aglie, one very stuned Gran who can't show dissapointment, she has to think of another way of inheriting. Family pride. Neville will be in the same year as Harry. Very convenient. Uphold the family name, and get yourself killed in the process, after all, she has been looking after Neville, she is not blame if something happens to him in school!!! She know too well that Neville has no confidence in himself and doesn't think he has any abilities yet she still go on about family pride, but she only starts doing this from the third book onwards, if you remember, Neville tells the others that Gran KNOWS that he always forgets things (see the rembembrall). Which answers the question of what was Neville about to say when he fell through the stairs in GOF. Algie is two steps ahead of her! Trevor. Neville is the only person with a toad. From the third book, Trevor isn't trying to get away from him any more, he was under his hat on the train!!! If someone found a stray toad without an owner, it would be Trevor but since when is Neville far away, like Flitch and Mrs Norris. Trevor is Algie's way of keeping an eye on Neville. Bit odd that Neville was still up and on his own in PS. Besides, Trevor always turned up AT Hogwarts (e.g. the boat). If something was wrong with Neville, Trevor could get help and no one could mistake him for anyone elses pet! The way Neville talks about gran, he does seem scared of her. Algie can't tell him everything because a)Gran might find out b) it would scare the poor kid. Insted, he implies things to Neville who does get the hint, hence the reason, he is so protective over a seemingly useless pet. Neville is also droping hints to the others that Gran is not what she seems looking at the way he talks about her but he can't incriminate Algie but he has suggested that Algie is looking after him but has left the others to belive that he is a bent loony at first glance. This also fits with W.I.N.C.H (why is Neville chosing humiliation). Dumbledore is puzzeled by why Neville hasn't ever mentioned his parents. Could it be that Neville's clumsyness and botched memory is a way of protecting himself whether he knows it or not? Someone who is always asking for help will get more attention then a clever person and could find out more in a very innocent way. Of course, not everyone is fooled, Snape who suspect dodgy dealing somewhere and takes an *use it or lose it" attitude to him. But it could be that Neville needs to throw of the web of lies Neville has been subject to and no better place for his talent to be discovered then at school. I'll let someone else finish this off (a.k.a must get on with somework before my housemates become suspicious). Dogberry From finwitch at yahoo.com Sat May 18 15:22:51 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 15:22:51 -0000 Subject: Can Character Change: A Separate Post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38856 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Pen Robinson wrote: > I think the Prank adds complexity to Sirius, because it was something he > did which could have had terrible consequences and which he doesn't seem > willing to admit as a fault. (I very much hope JKR gives us a bit more > background on it - though in case she doesn't, I have found a couple of > linked fanfics which have become, pro tem, part of my 'personal canon', as > they seem very satisfactorily to explain the motivations and mechanisms > involved.) It makes it apparent that if Sirius doesn't like someone, he is > capable of doing that person great wrong without thinking through the > consequences. He does the same with regard to Peter Pettigrew, doesn't he > - wants to kill him, without realising that a dead Pettigrew is a far less > convincing witness to Sirius' own innocence than a live one. And without > recognising that vengeance is not the same thing as justice. > > Still, I agree - it doesn't make sense to categorise someone solely on the > basis of one stupid thing he did as a teenager. And-- by my misunderstanding theory, it really *was* nothing he did. Just asking Snape why he doesn't press a knot on Whomping Willow's trunk in order to get trough (falsely believing Snape *knew* about the Whomping Willow), in order to find out if Snape knew about Remus' secret... which Snape interpreted as manipulation to get him do it! Sirius might even think Snape *knew* and was deliberately trying to get dear old Moony into trouble... as someone who "knew more curses than 7th year when arriving" it is plausible, plausible that Sirius believes Snape wanted to kill Remus that day. (explaining why Sirius hates Snape so much)... Uncovering this misunderstanding would be the key to the miracle Dumbledore was asking in the end of GoF. While the books have been getting darker and darker, there's always been some light of hope as well. -- Finwitch From mlacats at aol.com Sat May 18 16:05:13 2002 From: mlacats at aol.com (mlacats at aol.com) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 12:05:13 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Should Saw It? Message-ID: <14e.e0dd76e.2a17d5b9@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38857 In a message dated 05/15/2002 12:51:31 PM Pacific Daylight Time, Chelsea2162 at aol.com writes: > McGonagall should've realized then that although Moody was a tad (alright, a > > but more than a tad) paranoid, and he acted first and thought later, but > honestly, he was BOUNCING a student! He was causing a student to repeatedly > > slam into a stone floor! As soon as I read that, i knew that something was > up. > Also, Crouch/Moody knew exactly what had happened with the Goblet...true, > some people may say that the other teachers just figured he was taking an > educated guess, and thinking along the lines of the "bad guys" but he > actually SAID the EXACT thing that he had done in order to trick the > Goblet! > Anyone have any thoughts? Or notice anything amiss? > Although I did think the fake Moody's treatment of Malfoy was a bit over-the-top, I still didn't put two and two together the first time I read GOF...I just thought that Moody was very essentric and that everyone else would think so too. As for what Moody said in the adjoining room after Harry's name came out of that goblet....well, I figured he was very wise and had it figured out and that the others should have realized the same thing.... My son was really surprised too. Of course, it makes sense now...... Harriet - (Sorry, I don't post very often, but this was a very interesting take on the fake Moody) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From nobradors at hotmail.com Sat May 18 16:19:59 2002 From: nobradors at hotmail.com (Nuria Obradors) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 16:19:59 +0000 Subject: FILK: I'm pregnant Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38858 Introducing my first filk ever! Please don't throw tomatoes! I'M PREGNANT (aka: Weasleys: A History) To the tune of the Beatles' Ob-la-di, Ob-la-da Arthur has a burrow, it's a lovely place Molly has the ginger in her hair Arthur says to Molly girl I like your face And Molly says this as she takes him by the hand MOLLY: I'm pregnant, I will soon have a son, bra We will name him Bill, for sure. (repeat) Arthur goes to Diagon Alley in his Ford Buys a second-hand crib for the kid Takes it back to Molly who's fighting the gnomes And as he gives it to her she begins to sing MOLLY: I'm pregnant, I will soon have a son, bra And we'll name him Charles, of course. (repeat) In a dozen of years they have built A home sweet home, With another four kids running in the yard, They're Percy, Fred, George and Ron Happy they live even Voldemort still lurks Molly lets the children lend a hand Arthur's in the ministry that's where he works, And in the evening she smiles broadly as she says MOLLY: I'm pregnant, this time I'll have a girl, bra Ginny's a good name for her ARTHUR: We'll have to do contraception charms, bra 'Cause we're running out of cash! Nuri _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos es la manera ms sencilla de compartir e imprimir sus fotos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From Edblanning at aol.com Sat May 18 17:37:31 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 13:37:31 EDT Subject: TBAY: Fourth Man Revisited (was:The Real Rita/ Coherence/ Stoned!Harry etc) Message-ID: <156.e05c6df.2a17eb5b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38859 Severe TBAY warning. (But a perfectly serious, dare I say respectable - no, probably not - theory at the root of it all.) The story so far.... Eloise, finding herself in one of the parallel worlds where Fourth Man is not Avery and shamelessly borrowing ideas from another series, has fought and defeated the mysterious one who called herself Re-Harakhte, bearer of the Great Paddle and has thus herself become Paddle-Bearer. This Paddle, besides being a weapon of unimaginable power, is also able to beat holes in the very fabric of the universe, allowing travel between worlds in different dimensions. As Paddle Bearer, Eloise has no option but to follow the Bearer's destiny, and must seek the true identity of the Fourth Man. Having beaten such a hole, Eloise found herself on a beach, where an elfin figure, accompanied by a strange, other-worldy child showed her some charred fragments that proved that Fourth Man was a transvestite who sometimes went by the name of Rita Skeeter. The story continues...... Eloise is tired. It is late and she has a long journey ahead. Having said farewell to the elf and the child, whose name, it transpires, is Stoned!Harry, she walks on until she comes across a museum. It is still lit and the buzz of conversation comes from inside. Outside a notice advertises a series of seminars and the first one is tonight. Eloise enters, follows the signs to the basement and finds many rows of seats occupied by people in a high state of nervous anticipation. If she can just take a seat at the back, she thinks, surely she can get a bit of sleep here without anyone noticing. She notices a cosy looking MATCHING ARMCHAIR which has strangely been left free, and settles down. Strangely, Stoned!Harry is already there, seated in front of her. The podium is taken by another elf, who starts to speak to the audience's rapt attention. Eloise's Elfish is not very good and she doesn't understand much of what is said. As she starts to doze, strange phrases such as The Psychological Repression Theory drift in and out of her consciousness. Suddenly, she wakes, realising that the room has nearly emptied and that the few people who are left are giving her peculiar looks. It is hard to look inconspicuous with a large paddle. She follows the billowing smoke and clink of glasses to an ante room, where she finds Stoned!Harry listening intently to a conversation about the concept of coherence in some place called the Potterverse. Eloise's ears prick up at the sound af a familiar name: > 'The question I have, though, is, Does JKR *really* put clues in one >book that will count as foreshadowing of revelations in a later >book? In the specific example of Rita, is she *meant* to have any >mystery about her that survives GOF?' <> > So, is JKR a brilliant opportunist, or does she transcend the >genres from which her stories spring? The man, whose name is David, is answered by a young woman called Ali, >'I suspect that she is a mixture of both. Given that she spent 5 years >plannning the books before she started to write them, she must have >had quite a structure on which to base the books. All those notebooks >and backstories she has written to seem to point to more than just >opportunism. I think that she has not found the structure to be >foolproof though - hence deleting Rita Skeeter from the original >Leaky Cauldron scene, and deleting the Weasley cousin from GoF. 'Rita Skeeter was supposed to be in the Leaky Cauldron scene, was she?' thinks Eloise. 'So....the Fourth Man (aka Rita Skeeter) was actually supposed to be present in PS/SS.....And who is this mysterious Weasley cousin?' Stoned!Harry has mysteriously disappeared again. Eloise follows his distinctive aura up the stairs into the museum proper, where she finds him perched upon one of the exhibits, a very small cannon. The inscription reads, 'Are all your family wizards?' asked Harry, who found Ron just as interesting as Ron found him. 'Er - yes, I think so,' said Ron 'I think Mum's got a second cousin who's an accountant, but we never talk about him.' Eloise thinks the cannon is rather strange. Why would the Muggle-loving Weasleys *not* talk about a squib in the family? Surely they're more broad-minded than that. Of course, at the time the inscription refers to, we don't actually know about the Weasleys' attitudes. It would be easy to miss. Then Eloise recalls something else she heard once before, back in the world where Fourth man *is* Avery. Something to suggest that the Weasley family have a skeleton in their closet. Something that suggests that they have a particular connection with the use of the Imperius curse during Voldemort's reign of terror. Stoned!Harry has moved off and is illuminating another exhibit with his wand, 'Er,' said Ron tentatively, 'my dad told me about one...is it called the Imperius curse, or something?' 'Ah, yes, said Moody appreciatively. 'Your father *would* know that one. 'Gave the Ministry a lot of trouble at one time, the Imperius curse.' 'But that's quite innocent isn't it? Of course the Ministry was troubled by having to distinguish who was genuinely under Imperio and who wasn't?' Stoned!Harry gives Eloise a long-suffering look and pulls out a piece of parchment which has somehow got lodged behind one of the exhibits. It is a message, (#37121) from Elkins which details at length reasons for suggesting that Arthur Weasley was personally acquainted with the Imperius curse, that Arthur Weasley was in fact a victim of the curse himself. Eloise considers. Eloise does a bit of tweaking. 'What,' she tentatively suggests, 'if it was not Arthur himself, but a member of the family who was imperio'd?' Stoned!Harry gives her a look which seems to say, 'At last!' This hints at a scheme of great coherence. In PS/SS we should have been introduced to Rita Skeeter. We *were* introduced to a Weasley cousin, who significantly has (IIRC) never been mentioned again. The whole Fourth Man concept rests on the fact that JKR would not have introduced the fourth man at the trial unless he was significant. Why did she introduce the cousin unless he was significant? In PoA, we are introduced to the idea that the Weasley family may have a connection with the Imperius curse. In GoF, we are introduced to the Fourth Man and to Rita Skeeter. We *should* have been introduced to the Weasley cousin. What if we *have* been introduced to the Weasley cousin, but in disguise? If what JKR omitted was not the character, but his true identity? What if the Weasley cousin *is* the Fourth Man, who in turn *is* Rita? #,###,"> Molly Weasley's Second Cousin Is Ever So Evil <",###,# (If only under the effects of Imperius) Light headed with excitement, Eloise retraces her steps and uses the Paddle to break through into her home world, the one where Fourth Man *is* Avery. By accident, or by the design of fate, she emerges right by the gangplank of the Big Bang. Is this a Big, Bangy theory or what? She can't wait to tell the captain her news, but as she approaches the gangplank, she notices something strange. The sea isn't the calm, blue sea that she left; in the early dawn light she can see that it is grey, boiling and turbulent as if an underwater volcano were erupting. As Eloise and Stoned!Harry start to cross, the captain appears. 'So, Eloise, it's paddles at dawn, is it? There's only room for *one* Big Paddle on this ship.' Eloise had forgotten that she still held the Paddle. 'Oh, Cindy, no, you don't understand.....' Eloise tries to lay down the Paddle, but Cindy, mistaking the gesture, grabs it from her hands and starts brandishing it wildly. 'No! Cindy! You mustn't do that!' Too late, Cindy realises her mistake, for in swinging the Paddle, she cleanly severs Stoned!Harry's head from his shoulders. Stoned!Harry tumbles from the swaying gang plank into the seething grey molten sea below. Shocked, Cindy stands aside to let Eloise aboard, where shortly afterwards, sitting side by side as they contemplate the sun rising over the distant horizon they are amazed to see, clambering over the railings, the figure of a boy holding a Golden Snitch in his upraised hand. Eloise Off for a spell in St Mungo's to recover her sanity. Glossary Re-Harakhte: The Egyptian sun god, Re, as embodied in the Sphinx Thanking Porphyria for the little hedgehogs, and Alexander for his large one, which Hagrid is still trying to wrestle into submission ...................................................... For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hypotheticalle y.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database?method=report Rows&tbl=13 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pennylin at swbell.net Sat May 18 18:06:57 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 13:06:57 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Potterverse Coherence References: Message-ID: <006b01c1fe96$cca80f00$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38860 Hi -- James said: << Secondly, the main characters ARE children.>>>>>> [sounds of everyone groaning, "Oh no! We were hoping Penny wouldn't notice this one. Here she goes again....] [sounds of soapbox being dragged out from underneath the desk ...] The books are not, IMO, "meant" for children. They have a protagonist who is a child when the series begins. Harry and his friends will be adults (or late-term adolescents if you're unable to stomach the notion that 17/18 yr olds are adults) at the end of the series (if they survive). The books have so far been marketed to children, but I think even the publishers have now realized that this series has unprecedented cross-generational appeal. I also think that the publishers are going to have a very, very hard time marketing OOP to the "9-12" yr old set. I know JKR has said that the books will still be "appropriate" for children in that age group ..... but there's a difference between "appropriate for" and "intended for." She has been quite clear that she has no intention of "toning it down" or otherwise deviating from her master plan for the sake of younger readers. So, the NY Times notwithstanding, I think the series will in the end be viewed as a hybrid (with the earliest 2 volumes remaining classed as "9-12" and PoA and GoF maybe as "young adult" -- the last 3 more just general fantasy perhaps). One does wonder how the publishers believe it's going to be possible to continue slotting the books as "9-12" when JKR has promised realistically aging characters who will be adults at the end of the series. :::shakes head:::: As you note, James, JKR's style is not patronizing to the child readers. That's why I think it would be wrong to explain away the inconsistencies or problems within the series on the grounds that they are "just children's books." I also think this approach is unnecessarily critical of childrens' literature as a whole. As I said above, I don't really think the HP books will, in the final analysis, be classed as "childrens' books," but even if they are, they should still be able to withstand scrutiny and criticism. I have lots of reasons why I believe the books don't fall into the childrens' literature classification (anyone who wants to check the message archives will finds lots on this topic off & on over the last couple of years) ... but it's not because I don't think childrens' literature is an inferior art form. I do have some thoughts on David's post about coherence within the series -- I do think she has a "master plan" David. But I may not have time to set out my thoughts until later today. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ladjables at yahoo.com Sat May 18 21:12:42 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 14:12:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: TBAY/SHIP: Exorcizing the Prank/Taran=Ron/Harry Message-ID: <20020518211242.4541.qmail@web20404.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38861 Ama: Psst! Come here. Prank: Who, me? Ama: Who else? (Resignedly.) Take these. Prank: What are they? Ama: Chains. A few padlocks. I threw in some leg irons. You're going to be here a while, so I just wanted to make you more comfortable. Lord knows I tried to help. Make sure you rattle them good, and don't forget to moan and keen pitifully. Someone wil be sure to check on you from time to time. Prank: Well, gee thanks! It's not like I mind it here you know, everyone's so interested in me! Ama: Just go. Please. [Prank skips off.] [Marina, thanks for inserting the TBAY!] I've just re-read the Prydain Chronicles by Lloyd Alexander, and I was struck by how much Taran the Assistant Pig-keeper reminded me of Ron and Harry. He seemed a composite of the two, if you will. Like Harry, he is a foundling with a Great Destiny laid upon him (Harry does have some Great Destiny laid upon him, enough to warrant capital letters.) But Taran also longs for recognition and glory, and worries that he will never be good enough for the noble Princess Eilonwy; these fears often trigger a fit of anger. Here he more closely parallels Ron, who is ashamed of being poor and struggles with establishing an identity for himself as the sixth Weasley son. These are superficial features, but are Ron and Harry equally compatible with Hermione? Taran is brave, sensitive, hot-tempered, compassionate and stubborn. The question is, is Hermione enough like Eilonwy? I think so. Eilonwy is marvellously spirited and endowed with a sense of individuality, even if she isn't an overachiever like Hermione. I, however, have never been convinced that "bright" is an adequate summary of Hermione's character. I've always been more impressed with her sense of morality and her "spunk". So, if Hermione is like Eilonwy, and Ron and Harry are like Taran, then perhaps Hermione needs to find a boy who embodies both their qualities. Maybe Krum is Hermione's Taran!!! You don't like it? Oh well, so be it. Prank: Hey! Whereya goin'? Ama: What are you doing back here? I gave you chains, go play! Prank: But I want someone to talk to, to understand me!Ama: Nooo, what you want is to constantly be in the spotlight. That's why you keep spinning stories, but never tell the truth. We treat you well, and you toy with us. Oy, what possessed me to bring you back, I have no idea. Prank: But I'm trying to help! It's just complicated. And I'm shy. I have these fears... Ama: You have what? Why am I even listening to you? Prank: (shouting.) I'm not done here! I refuse to be shunted about, tossed from one side to the next, and then dropped like a hot potato, or a used tissue. Ama: I know you're not shouting at ME. Prank: I have feelings!!! Ama: You are a prank. You cannot have feelings. Now pipe down, or I'll stuff you back into that canon yonder. Prank:(sulky.) Fine. I don't like you anymore... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From Ali at zymurgy.org Sat May 18 21:31:38 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 21:31:38 -0000 Subject: Life/Debt Bonds in the Potterverse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38862 I know that this has been discussed before, and I have checked the Lexicon for further info, but I still feel confused over the nature of this bond - but believe that it will be fundamental to the rest of the books, and possibly even to Harry's survival. Dumbledore tells us:- "This is magic at its deepest, its most impenetrable... the time may come when you will be very glad you saved Pettigrew's life" (p.311 POA UK hardback). We learn from Hagrid (P.154 POA):- "But when a wizard goes over ter the dark side, there's nothing and no one that matters to'em any more" Thus if Voldemort would not want a deputy in Harry's debt, it would seem to imply that the Life/Debt bond is more than a moral/chivalrous bond. At this level it is almost a compulsion. I can understand that Pettigrew tried to persuade Voldemort not to use Harry in his "resurrection potion" - he would not then have to honour his side of the Life/debt bond against Voldemort. How though could he allow Harry to face Voldemort in the graveyard duel? My only solution (other than accusing JKR of flinty writing) is that somehow Harry was pre-destined to survive that particular encounter, and therefore Pettigrew was not forced to act. I believe that the Life/debt bond can actually operate on 2 levels - the compulsive element that would still hold Pettigrew in Harry's debt. But also a pyschological element - or debt of honour - which would form part of the Wizard Warrior Code. Snape saves Harry's life in PS/SS. Dumbledore believes that this is because "he felt that would make him and quits. Then he could go back to hating in peace. This implies to me that Sanpe wasn't acting on compulsion but was lifting a pyschological burden - namely the Life/debt bond created between himself and James Potter. If this is the case, it would seem to imply that *normally* the bond is only between the 2 individuals, it is only Snape who chooses to carry it on for another generation. We see many possible scenarios that could result in a Life/debt burden, but have still not beent old if these bonds have been created. For instance, would a bond be created when Harry saved Sirius and Hermione from the dementors? After all, they would still have been alive - albeit without souls. Could Voldemort be in debt to Harry because Harry's blood resurrected Voldemort - or can we rule this out? IMO there must be a conscous decision to save life for the bond to kick in - although I admit that there is no canon for this. I suppose as well, the fact that Harry's blood resurrected Voldemort rather than saved him from death might ensure that there is no bond. One final thought, to what do those in debt owe their debt? In other words, could the debt that is owed to Harry be passed onto Voldemort as he is now a "by-product" of Harry - through the use of his blood - or is the debt owed to the character and person of Harry alone? Ali Who tomorrow is going to play "Pooh sticks" off Pooh bridge for her father-in-law's 60th birthday!! (At his request). From Ali at zymurgy.org Sat May 18 21:48:23 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 21:48:23 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Fourth Man Revisited (was:The Real Rita/ Coherence/ Stoned!Harry etc) In-Reply-To: <156.e05c6df.2a17eb5b@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38863 Me: ...hence deleting Rita Skeeter from the original Leaky Cauldron scene, and deleting the Weasley cousin from GoF. Eloise: > ....And who is this mysterious Weasley cousin?' > > Stoned!Harry has mysteriously disappeared again. Eloise follows his > distinctive aura up the stairs into the museum proper, where she finds him > perched upon one of the exhibits, a very small cannon. The inscription reads, > > 'Are all your family wizards?' asked Harry, who found Ron just as interesting as Ron found him. > 'Er - yes, I think so,' said Ron 'I think Mum's got a second > cousin who's an accountant, but we never talk about him.' > > Eloise thinks the cannon is rather strange. Why would the Muggle- loving Weasleys *not* talk about a squib in the family? Surely they're more broad-minded than that. Of course, at the time the inscription refers to, we don't actually know about the Weasleys' attitudes. It would be easy to miss. > > Stoned!Harry gives her a look which seems to say, 'At last!' > > This hints at a scheme of great coherence. In PS/SS we should have been > introduced to Rita Skeeter. We *were* introduced to a Weasley cousin, who significantly has (IIRC) never been mentioned again I think that the second cousin mentioned in PS/SS and the cousin who JKR had intended to put into Gof are different. Sorry, although I 've read loads of her interviews I'm useless at remembering where she said what. I think though that the cousin in GoF was to be a female who would be sending information out of Hogwarts I guess as a fellow pupil - actually fulfilling some of the role that Rita Skeeter eventually had. I've wondered alot about the Weasley second cousin, and don't believe that he can have been a squib, or that he would have choosen to live as a Muggle. It just doesn't seem to be like the Weasleys to ostracise him. But the idea that he had done something wrong, had had his wand snapped in half - and made to go and live as a Muggle, might explain the Weasley attitude. I too wonder if we'll hear anything about him again! Ali From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 18 22:33:52 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 22:33:52 -0000 Subject: Can Character Change: A Separate Post In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38864 Heidi asked: >>>>> So... have at it! Can character change? And if so, what seeds have to have been sown by now to "allow" it?<<<< One massive IMO, covering this entire post.... Characters can change, as long as they don't do it in ways that undermine the exposition of the theme or the unwritten rules of character development. These rules operate differently in works of fantasy. Novelistic characters change as a result of their experiences. Their choices make them what they are. Archetypal characters are different: their choices *reveal* what they are. When they grow or change, it is either by magic or with no explanation at all. For example, it is the way of elderly wizards who mentor young heros to become suddenly and unaccountably much wiser and more powerful as the tale goes on. The deceitful Merlin who served Uther somehow becomes the trustworthy counselor of Arthur. The Wizard of Oz changes from the dubious and possibly murderous charlatan of the first Oz book into one of Dorothy's kindest and most powerful friends. Gandalf of The Hobbit, whose advice was sometimes quite useless (Don't leave the path!) returns in LOTR as the mighty Mithrandir, whose counsel must never be rejected. The flamboyant and eccentric Dumbledore of Book One morphs into the wise and weary warrior of Book Four. This violation of naturalistic character development works because it reflects a subjective truth. It points up the magical way in which our elders seem to be a whole lot wiser all of a sudden once we've had some adventures of our own. Rowling's work contains a mix of novelistic characters like Harry and Hermione, and archetypal characters like Voldemort. She takes an artistic risk by having them interact. Unfortunately Voldemort comes off as a bit cardboardy in these encounters: he's far more effective when Harry is immobilized and Voldemort can be his terrifying self, than he is when they duel. We can easily see that Harry and Hermione change because of their experiences. Voldemort does not change, nor can he learn. Indeed, it seems he even forgets things he ought to know. He is no more susceptible to redemption than Norbert. Other characters who seem more archetypal than novelistic are McGonagall, Molly and Lucius. They don't change. Instead they are a yardstick against which we can measure the growth of the characters who are changing. Since most of the changes which have overtaken Sirius, Snape, Lupin and Pettigrew happen outside the frame of the story, it is hard to know what caused them and what further changes or revelations are in store. Hagrid is clearly molded by his experiences and his choices, and though he is half mythical creature, he develops in a naturalistic way. I am not sure where Draco and Ron fit. Draco's experiences don't seem to have taught him wisdom or even cunning. Ron's storms of jealousy seem to pass and leave him unchanged. Perhaps the Sorting Hat took so little time with them because it did not need to help them make a choice. It only needed to reveal what they already were. I don't think this bodes well for evil!Ron scenarios. As the theme is "our choices make us what we are" I think it would be difficult for Rowling to show Draco being reformed. One of Harry's most significant choices was to enter Gryffindor. If Draco can turn into a good guy and even get the girl, it will look like Harry's choices really didn't make him anything. It will seem that he might have rejected Ron, gone into Slytherin and still turned out the same. Snape at least is still clearly suffering from the results of decisions he made long ago. Pippin From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 18 22:51:30 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 22:51:30 -0000 Subject: Evil and Slytherin was Re: Perspective ... / Coherence Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38865 I said: << The moment I try to conceive of them as morally complicated, however, their situation makes no sense. Are they Slytherins because the Hat recognizes that at the age of eleven they are "criminally incurable"? OTOH, if they aren't hard cases, why treat them as if they were?>>>> Penny said: >>>>>Er ... is having ambition regarded as rendering one "criminally incurable"? Seriously, this notion that the Slytherins are all evil is very flawed in my mind. They are ambitious. Power-hungry. Cunning. Willing to use "any means to achieve their end." But, not necessarily criminal. Not necessarily Evil. Not necessarily. <<<<< Sarah said: >>>>Erm...wait-a-minute...Since when has the defining classification of Slytherin been incurable evil? Ambition, cunning, ruthlessness...all traits that *could* lead to evil, certainly, but not evil in themselves. <<<<<< I wasn't saying that the Slytherins are *evil*. I said that Slytherin House is anti-social. That's different. Slytherins, we are told, "use any means to achieve their ends." That philosophy is anti-social, " hostile to or disruptive of the established social order: marked by or engaging in behavior that violates accepted mores." It is the exact opposite of what the House system is supposed to teach. The House system, as McGonagall says, is "your family within Hogwarts." It exists to reward achievements and punish rule-breaking, that is, to indoctrinate the children with the mores of the wizarding world. (ch 7 PS/SS) Sarah: >>Why would they keep such a house around, anyway?<< Why does Ankh-Morpork have an Assassin's Guild*? Because it's *funny*. A House system, at Hogwarts or in real life, is supposed to teach the values of working together, wholesome competition and so forth. It's a way of invoking peer pressure to get the kids to internalize the rules. Slytherin House subverts that, except that it isn't subversion since the Hat *openly* proclaims that Slytherins ignore the rules for their own ends. I don't think that the Slytherins will all turn out to be evil. Even Draco might decide to disobey his father. (I don't think much of his chances of living happily ever after, though.) It just can't happen in a way that would cause a character to say, "Dear me, why are we sorting impressionable young people with a tendency to be ruthless and ambitious rule-breakers into a House where those behaviours are encouraged? Silly thing to do, really." * a reference to Terry Pratchett's Discworld series -------- I am surprised there could be any question about whether the books are supposed to cohere from volume to volume. What other reason could there be for going back and getting the wand order right? Pippin From yankee00 at earthlink.net Sun May 19 02:01:22 2002 From: yankee00 at earthlink.net (Amanda Rush) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 22:01:22 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Should Saw It? In-Reply-To: <14e.e0dd76e.2a17d5b9@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020518215823.01f6bec0@mail.earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38866 Several people have posted that Crouch/Moody's treatment of Malfoy in chapter 14 of GOF was extreme. Call me cruel, but, the first time I read that passage, I thought it was extremely humorous. In fact, I still think it's humorous. Maybe that would be because I'm no Draco fan, and, unless J. K. Rowling specifically states that he is redeemable, or will be redeemed, I'll be perfectly content to look at him as a villain of some sort. From witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com Sun May 19 02:15:08 2002 From: witchwanda2002 at yahoo.com (Wanda the Witch) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 19:15:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Should Saw It? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020518215823.01f6bec0@mail.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <20020519021508.40715.qmail@web13705.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38867 Amanda Rush wrote: Several people have posted that Crouch/Moody's treatment of Malfoy in chapter 14 of GOF was extreme. In fact, I still think it's humorous. Well, we thought it was very very humorous! I laughed out loud with the boys! Actually, we even had a discussion on how we would have liked to have been able to do that to certain bullies we know in the neighborhood and school! I'll be the first to admit not to be cruel to children. There are a certain few near us that will use whatever means they have in their hands to do bodily harm to another. So, there are those few that should have done unto them that they will do unto others! If you want to be treated nicely, be nice to others. If you want to be an all out top notch bully, then you will get what's coming to you! Well, Draco and his buddies certainly like to push the pain onto others. Draco being turned into a ferret and bounced very roughly, is a good bunch of giggles for all of us here! Atleast the good news on this is, is that he still was his horrible bully self afterwards! Probably going to be one of those that just won't learn the easy way. Schnoogles, Wanda the Witch of Revere, Massachusetts and Her Band of Muggles 100 % (Getting back to very merry as soon as Will is home) "When you come to the edge of all the light you know, and are about to step off into the darkness of the unknown, faith is knowing one of two things will happen; There will be something solid to stand on, or you will be taught how to fly."......Unknown. --------------------------------- Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From blpurdom at yahoo.com Sun May 19 02:28:19 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 02:28:19 -0000 Subject: Children's books/Planning all seven (was: Potterverse Coherence) In-Reply-To: <006b01c1fe96$cca80f00$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38868 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > [sounds of soapbox being dragged out from underneath the desk ...] > > The books are not, IMO, "meant" for children. They have a > protagonist who is a child when the series begins. Harry and his > friends will be adults (or late-term adolescents if you're unable > to stomach the notion that 17/18 yr olds are adults) at the end of > the series (if they survive). The books have so far been marketed > to children, but I think even the publishers have now realized > that this series has unprecedented cross-generational appeal. I > also think that the publishers are going to have a very, very hard > time marketing OOP to the "9-12" yr old set. Thank you, Penny! This is something I think people forget far too often. In a way, I'm not a bit sorry that she's taking a while to release book five, when Harry will be turning fifteen and then almost reaching his sixteenth birthday. If it comes out in 2003, my kids will be turning 9 and 11 that year. I plan to read the book first so I can tell where I may have to warn them of particularly scary or nerve-wracking events. (My daughter put off reading PoA for a while because the depictions of the dementors on the American edition were rather eerie.) If it takes a minimum of two years after that for book six, they'll be at least 11 and 13 when that comes out, and if book seven is on a similar schedule, by then they'll be 13 and 15, and aging along with the characters to the extent that I won't need to worry about the books throwing things at them that they can't handle. Do any of us think the final showdown will be pretty? I don't think so. And isn't it in book five we're supposed to get the death that is very hard for her to write? Hopefully, the NY Times, among other entities, will cease to think of HP as a children's series well before the series is completed. I can think of many individual books which begin with a child protagonist and then follow the main character into adulthood, and these books are rarely considered children's books just because the protagonist starts off as a child. The thing that sets the HP books apart from these types of books is that she is stretching out the maturation process over seven books, so within the scope of each early book Harry has only aged a year and is still technically a child. > I do have some thoughts on David's post about coherence within the > series -- I do think she has a "master plan" David. But I may not > have time to set out my thoughts until later today. Oh, it's clear she has a master plan. Very early in the first book, we find that Hagrid has borrowed the flying motorcycle from Sirius Black. He puts out this information to Dumbledore and McGonagall in a casual way that implies he hasn't been framed for killing Peter Pettigrew yet. (Oddly, Dumbledore and McGonagall don't seem to think that if the Potters are dead it must be because Sirius betrayed them, so the implication is that at that time they didn't know that Sirius had been the Potter's Secret Keeper--and they also don't know that it was changed to Pettigrew.) Many of us probably thought the character of Sirius Black was just introduced in PoA unless we went back and reread the first book right after. There are many other clear links between the books, and cross-book foreshadowing. Someone was comparing the HP books to "school" series, but the HP books remind me more of two different fantasy series: Jane Langton's books about the Hall family and Madeleine L'Engle's books about the Murrys. The difference, however, is that one gets the impression that Langton and L'Engle created the characters for just their first books, coming up with a main problem for the plots and the methods for the main characters to solve the problems. Each book was sufficient unto itself. In subsequent books, the characters aged and evolved and new challenges were met, but one never got the impression that an overall arc was being followed, that all of the books in each series had been planned from the start. When each of them had an idea for a new book with these characters, it was written. In contrast to this method, JKR has a vision of the end of book seven. Each book along the way has to be consistent with her final vision. I'm not convinced that Langton envisioned even the second Hall book, "The Swing in the Summmerhouse," when she wrote, "The Diamond in the Window, or that L'Engle imagined "A Swiftly Tiltiing Planet" when she wrote "A Wrinkle in Time." All of their books are well-done and the characters' developments from book to book are fascinating and realistic; but JKR's Harry will develop in a deliberate and not an accidental way, I'm convinced. She knows exactly what she wants to do. As far as details are concerned--from doing fanfic and now starting a new piece of original fiction, I know that the big events in a book are easier to keep track of and that the small things tend to evolve during the writing process. Some small things prove to be serendipitous accidents, and others become large stumbling blocks which require massive rewriting. She knows she has a hyper-critical world-wide audience. I am not going to begrudge her one minute of perfecting the next book. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb The prequel is coming...come visit the Lost Generation... From oppen at cnsinternet.com Sun May 19 05:48:50 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 00:48:50 -0500 Subject: What Is Easy vs. What Is Right---Take Two Message-ID: <002f01c1fef8$dc5cd360$fac71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 38869 Okay, you all have convinced me. No matter how much he loathes them, Harry Potter would never just stand there and let Draco Malfoy, Greg Goyle and Vince Crabbe be dragged screaming off to Azkaban for a crime he knew for sure they hadn't committed. Harry's probably one of the most _decent_ people at Hogwarts, and if he knew for sure the Anti-Trio were innocent, he'd do all he could to help them---just because he's that sort of person, and wouldn't be able to live with himself if he hadn't done all he could to save them. (How he turned out so nice after all those years with the Dursleys is one of those mysteries I'll never understand.) By the same token, Hermione would never, ever knowingly let anybody, even the Anti-Trio (or Snape) be convicted for something they hadn't done. She is IMNSHO the bravest of the Trio, and has enough courage to stand up tall and resolute in the teeth of a howling Wizard World court-cum-lynch mob, _demanding_ to be heard, and _demanding_ to be allowed to give her evidence. If she _did_ succumb to that sort of temptation for long enough for someone to be convicted for something he or she were innocent of, she'd be all but paralyzed with suicidal-level guilt. However, there is a _third_ member of the Trio. One who is impulsive, short-tempered, hates the Anti-Trio, and has been known to act on his dislikes. What if it were _Ron_ who was faced with a terrible temptation, when the Anti-Trio were accused of something horrible---he knew very well that they couldn't be guilty, but he was the _only_ person who knew? Maybe even the Anti-Trio weren't aware that he had this knowledge---otherwise they'd be screaming, at their "trial," for Ron Weasley to be called in to give evidence. So---what would happen if Draco Malfoy was exonerated and released from what would have been a life sentence at Azkaban, and it came out that _Ron Weasley_ had known very well that he was innocent, but had kept quiet and knowingly let them be convicted? So we've got Draco, a trembling wreck being gently led around Hogwarts by Madam Pomfrey, an object of horrified pity even from Hagrid and the Gryffindors---_and everybody knows that Ron did this to him deliberately!_ I think that in this case, Ron would find out just what Harry felt like during the first of the Triwizard tasks. He'd have to face up to the fact that his impulsiveness and vengefulness had led him a long way down the path to the Dark Side. I think he'd eventually be forgiven, but he'd go through some serious hell before he did---not just from Harry and (especially!) Hermione, but possibly from Professor Dumbledore, Professor McGonagall, and his family. From siskiou at earthlink.net Sun May 19 06:23:55 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 23:23:55 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What Is Easy vs. What Is Right---Take Two In-Reply-To: <002f01c1fef8$dc5cd360$fac71bce@hppav> References: <002f01c1fef8$dc5cd360$fac71bce@hppav> Message-ID: <16368226157.20020518232355@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38870 Hi, Saturday, May 18, 2002, 10:48:50 PM, Eric wrote: > He'd have to face up to the fact that his > impulsiveness > and vengefulness had led him a long way down the path to the Dark Side. Yeah, but I don't see this happen. While Ron is impulsive and strikes back when someone attacks him or his friends, he doesn't really start things. Both he and Ron talk about ways to get Draco expelled during their Christmas break in book 1, but it's pretty clear that this is not serious. Azkaban is definitely nothing to joke around with. While all three of them might *think* about keeping quiet in the case you describe, I don't believe any of them would be capable of actually going through with it. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From oppen at cnsinternet.com Sun May 19 06:34:41 2002 From: oppen at cnsinternet.com (Eric Oppen) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 01:34:41 -0500 Subject: Evil Draco? Dead Draco? Message-ID: <003b01c1feff$42e05c00$fac71bce@hppav> No: HPFGUIDX 38871 I count myself in the camp that says that Draco Malfoy _can_ be redeemed...true, _when we see him_ he's generally being a pretty obnoxious brat, but we see him almost always through Harry's eyes (or Crabbengoyle's eyes, when the Trio have brewed Polyjuice Potion). For all we know to the contrary, he's not getting better grades because he's working very hard to make sure that his two idiot friends Crabbengoyle won't flunk out of school and be sent to a Magical Home for the Evolutionarily Challenged. He sounds rather exasperated with them in the Polyjuice scene, but that's far from inconsistent with the idea that he's taken them, academically, under his wing. For that matter...let's just suppose for a minute that Draco _did_ want to turn against his daddy's view of things. So, he goes around saying things like "Oh, Muggle-born wizards and witches are just peachy---and so is Hagrid! The Dark Lord's got to have been on drugs! I think that all Death Eaters should go snog a Dementor!" _How_ long do you think it would take for the Stones-that-Speak (an Effinger reference there---R.I.P.) to shop him to their fathers, or to his? We only ever see him without them at the Quidditch World Cup---and there, if you'll recall, he warns Hermione to "keep that big bushy head down, Granger," when the Death Eaters are tormenting the Muggles. For that matter, he makes a point of warning the Trio that the DEs don't distinguish between Muggles and Muggle-born mages. True, he _could_ just be being his usual nasty snarky self--but he could also be trying his best to keep someone he knows has more courage than common sense (Hermione) from charging into a situation where she'd be in real danger, which he figures she'd do. If he were Evil Clear Through, wouldn't he have done something to encourage Hermione to go out and tangle with the DEs? It wouldn't have been that hard. His actions in regard to Hagrid are comprehensible, particularly in the context of the wizarding world's attitude about people with giant blood...I'd bet that he had a fairish old idea of just who Hagrid's parents were a long time before it was confirmed by Rita Skeeter. Face it, Hagrid's _not_ very responsible in a lot of ways (taking first-year students into the Forbidden Forest when there's real danger around, insisting on raising Norbert, and so on and so on) and I can understand how he might want a Care of Magical Creatures teacher who actually knew how to teach and what to teach. Professor Grubbly-Plank is not reported as having any trouble with Malfoy, as far as I remember. I don't _like_ what he does to Hagrid, but I can see the logic of it. However...I must say that I like the idea of Dead!Draco. How about this scenario: Draco tries to break away from his daddy's idea that he will be a DE, and reaches out to the Trio...and just as they are deciding that it's all a trick to fool them, they stumble across Draco's lifeless corpse, with the words "Death to all who repudiate the Dark Lord!" written on the wall. In Lucius Malfoy's own handwriting, no less...could anybody at Hogwarts ID that? That would be rather an unexpected twist, and provide a lot of interesting angst and guilt for the Trio. --Eric, who has a very vivid, morbid imagination. From pen at pensnest.co.uk Sun May 19 09:50:59 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 10:50:59 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The 'Prank'? Was: Can Character Change: A Separate Post In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38872 Another thought: I've been referring to the Prank, as that seems to be its name here... but listening to dear Stephen Fry only last night, I realised that there was no reference whatever to a 'prank'. Lupin referred to what Sirius did as a 'trick'. Is it a 'prank' in US editions? Or is this a local designation used on this list? Does it make a difference in our interpretation? I, partial as I am to all kinds of fine shades of meaning, even when some of them are peculiar to me, think so. To my mind, 'prank' is 'lighthearted schoolboy stuff'. If Remus referred to what Sirius did as a 'prank', it implies (to me) that he doesn't condemn it. A 'trick' is a bit more thought out, and not quite so excusable. So the wording I was listening to yesterday gives Sirius a bit more blame and Remus a bit less indulgence. Pen From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun May 19 10:44:26 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 10:44:26 -0000 Subject: Neville as Witness (was Re: TBAY: Memory Charm Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38873 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: Hi, I'm just going to use one paragraph Cindy wrote to ask something that's been on my mind for a while. Cindy said >If Neville is old enough to > recognize the perpetrators, or heaven forbid, if he actually *knew* > one of them, I don't see how they would have left him alive, Memory > Charm or no Memory Charm. And if they were worried about him, why > not Stun him immediately so he doesn't even witness the crime? Erm. Am I the only one with a dark enough mind to realize that if the torturing DEs had Neville there, in the house with his parents, they would have used torture on him as the best and quickest means to get what they want from the parents? Can you imagine a parent not breaking down under threat or actual torture of her child? That's one of the reasons I just can't buy the Neville as eyewitness theories. If he was there, he would have either gone through terrible torture (in which case, why isn't he insane also?) or already be dead. Naama From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sun May 19 11:25:50 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 11:25:50 -0000 Subject: Neville as Witness (was Re: TBAY: Memory Charm Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38874 Naama wrote: > Erm. Am I the only one with a dark enough mind to realize that if the > torturing DEs had Neville there, in the house with his parents, they > would have used torture on him as the best and quickest means to get > what they want from the parents? Can you imagine a parent not > breaking down under threat or actual torture of her child? > That's one of the reasons I just can't buy the Neville as eyewitness > theories. If he was there, he would have either gone through terrible > torture (in which case, why isn't he insane also?) or already be > dead. There might be a few reasons why Neville didn't receive his own extended round of the Cruciatus Curse: 1. According to Crouch Sr., the DEs tried something similar to what you suggest. They tortured Frank, and then "when he would not give you information" they tortured his wife. At this point, even if the DEs considered moving on to torture Neville, the DEs may have either figured Frank really didn't have information or he was insane. 2. Even DEs aren't evil enough to torture a small child. 3. Maybe DEs know that if you torture anyone long enough, they'll Crack if they have the information. There was no benefit to continuing the torture with Neville. 4. Perhaps the assault was interrupted before they had the chance to move on to torturing Neville. Personally, I favor Option 2. That allows our DEs to have a conscience, to have depths to which even Evil DEs will not sink. That gives us the tension that, at a crucial moment, a DE will refuse to do something especially wicked. That might come in handy when it is time for Peter to kill Lupin with his silver hand. Now as for me, I'm still waiting for an answer to why the DEs didn't use the undisputed quickest and most efficient way to get the information out of Frank -- The Imperius Curse. Anyone? Cindy From darklites at hotmail.com Sun May 19 06:39:32 2002 From: darklites at hotmail.com (joyously00) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 06:39:32 -0000 Subject: Draco Redeemable How? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38875 Hello all! This is my first post... this list moves so fast I am usually too busy to reply, but let's give it a shot here: jenny from ravelclaw said: > For me, it's not so much that I believe Draco will be redeemed (even > though I do have hope for that), but that I have a hard time seeing > him go down his father's path. I just don't know if Draco has it in > him to get his hands that dirty, so to speak. and: >He's a > sniveling brat, yes, but a coldhearted and cruel Death Eater? I have > trouble with that. This is exactly what I think. Up until this point, Draco has been portrayed as a rather cowardly character who seems to run from any type of trouble. It is my personal opinion that when he sees what being a Death Eater truly entails, he'll freak and run. We've been shown evidence that Lucius Malfoy does not tell his son much (if at all) about the workings of the DEs (he did not even tell Draco the identity of the Heir of Slytherin in CoS). Draco knows *nothing*, at this point. Even at the end of GoF, when he taunts the Trio, he does it in such an off-hand way that it is clear he does not understand the gravity of the situation, for both sides. (I am actually one who does not believe it was a "warning", however. I think he just did not know any better.) I think that Draco is still able to be redeemed as at the end of GoF there is the opportunity for him to be gravely changed as a character. Now that Voldemort is back, now that he is older, perhaps he will finally be shown the truth. Draco sees his father to be Knower of All, and if he is finally able to see that he isn't, then his world will crumble around him. And I just don't see him following in his father's footsteps when this happens. Draco isn't evil. He is simply a snotty school bully, and so I think he will be scared into some sense. And even if it is to save his own behind, there's a large chance he'll want to change alliances. So perhaps he will not be completely redeemed, but will at least partly be. Joy From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Sat May 18 19:09:32 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Sat, 18 May 2002 19:09:32 -0000 Subject: Potterverse Coherence In-Reply-To: <006b01c1fe96$cca80f00$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38876 Penny, [James crawls from the wreckage of his beloved aeroplane "the hedgehog" haveing been shot down in flames. He is bruised, batterd - but unbowed. Resolves to carry on on foot] I belive the books are the best ficion (or, gosh-darn-it, anything) I have read in a long time (the Illiad pips them, but they destroy LOTR and the Dark Matter trilogy). I am not a child. However part of the joy of them is precisely that they are written in a childish way. A return to innocence through a child's eye - entering a magical world. > [sounds of everyone groaning, "Oh no! We were hoping Penny wouldn't notice this one. Here she goes again....] > That's why I think it would be wrong to explain away the inconsistencies or problems within the series on the grounds that they are "just children's books." No, but to understand the plotting we must cling to this. Just like to understand the end of Macbeth we must realise when it was written, and that it was written for King James I/VI. The books (especially the first one) WERE written for children. JKR says so. > I also think this approach is unnecessarily critical of childrens' literature as a whole. I feel I have answered this, in saying that I rate them higher than anything I've read recently...but...I don't use the term children's literature as a pejorative. I was giving examples of bad writing in children's literature (something I hated as a child an still do). The joy of JKR's work is that she was annoyed by this as a child too so never presents a false world where bad stuff doesn't happen, all in black and white (and from spoilers of OOP the grey keeps growing). I think the Potterverse is a rich and full one, but not complete. This was elegantly shown in her companion books. One left out creatures present in the story's and the other (as a devout sports fan) was frankly unsatisfactory. Continuity errors will slip in, but all the books are\will be written with the whole arc in mind. The plot hasn't fossilised yet so change will occur making things written earlier and intended for significance asides, and new ideas either spring from the ether - or be drawn from incedental details. I wait with baited breath for the next installments, [James sets off in search of a rock to crawl under until the backblast subsides, and hopes all forgive his awful spelling as he forgives their americanisms] James From Edblanning at aol.com Sun May 19 11:30:05 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 07:30:05 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Fourth Man Revisited (was:The Real Rita/ Cohere... Message-ID: <108.11f23839.2a18e6bd@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38877 ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< Despite the fact that Eloise is supposed to enjoying a period of complete quiet in St Mugo's, an owl has managed to post a letter through the bars of her secure room. It is from Ali: > I think that the second cousin mentioned in PS/SS and the cousin who > JKR had intended to put into Gof are different. Sorry, although I 've > read loads of her interviews I'm useless at remembering where she > said what. I think though that the cousin in GoF was to be a female > who would be sending information out of Hogwarts I guess as a fellow > pupil - actually fulfilling some of the role that Rita Skeeter > eventually had. 'Which only goes to show the cunning workings of JKR's mind', thinks Eloise, who also, now Ali comes to mention it, has an inkling in the back of her deranged mind that this was the scenario envisaged. But before lapsing into a state of depression, it occurs to her that it doesn't really matter in the greater scheme of things if the Weasley cousins are not one and the same. Eloise grabs the bars of her window and shouts to anyone who will listen, 'Molly Weasley's Second Cousin Is *Still* Ever So Evil', sending a small family of hedgehogs, [ #,#,"> #,#,"> #,#,"> #,##,#"> (Mamma and babies) - thanks again to Porphyria, purveyor of hedgehogs by appointment to the OFH] who had been peacefully rummaging for slugs under the window, sailing into the air in search of the nearest safe tree-top. It also brings forth the wizards in white coats, bearing a goblet of something distinctly unpleasant looking and a contract reminding her that she will not be released from solitary confinement until she has written at least another 1000 words on Egyptian chronology. Eloise is not sure that this is really going to help her sanity, but it may bring her back to reality for a bit. So....in the immortal words of Douglas Adams, So long [for now], and thanks for all the fish, Eloise ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< <"))>< [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Sun May 19 01:30:22 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 01:30:22 -0000 Subject: Evil and Slytherin was Re: Perspective ... / Coherence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38878 Slytherins.... The books are told from Harry's pov. Harry was almost put in slytherin. He dislikes the people from slytherin he encounters and holds his own house paramount. Of course he sees the slytherins a evil, he was so worried that he was almost put there he even goes for a second opinion (whilst left alone in Dumbledore's office) he loves his house and doubts himself, he wants to bury any idea that he may belong anywhere else. So... He vilifies the other place to make it easier to defend his inclusion in the place he wants to be. Forgive the pop. psycology (some of my friends would kill me for that), I know it's not that simple - but it does explain why he is so unwilling to see good in the Slytherins or the vitues of that house (despite Dumbledore's championing of their cause - a sign that JKR doesn't see them as all evil) James (who has posted too much today) From skelkins at attbi.com Sun May 19 11:47:35 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 11:47:35 -0000 Subject: Neville as Witness (was Re: TBAY: Memory Charm Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38879 Naama wrote: > Erm. Am I the only one with a dark enough mind to realize that if > the torturing DEs had Neville there, in the house with his parents, > they would have used torture on him as the best and quickest means > to get what they want from the parents? No, you aren't. I agree, and I've raised that objection before. If Neville had been there, and if the DEs had known that he was there, then they definitely would have brutalized him. He would have to have been hiding in a closet, or something similarly cheesy. But there's an even worse problem with the entire body of Neville-as- witness theories, you know. There's a *big* problem, a problem that cuts to the heart of every single one of the Neville-as-witness speculations. Debbie asked: > But then again, is there any canon evidence that this happened at > home? No. In fact... Oh. I can't just *believe* that I'm doing this. But sometimes you really do just have to go with What Is Right over What Is Interesting. Yeah. Okay. All right. Not only is it nowhere stated in canon that the Longbottoms were attacked at home, but the canon actually suggests that it did *not* happen in their own home. Look. Crouch's summary of the charges against the Pensieve Four begins with: "The four of you stand accused of capturing an Auror -- Frank Longbottom -- and subjecting him to the Cruciatus Curse..." Yup. That's right. "Capturing." Now, you really don't call it "capturing" when somebody is assaulted in his very own home, do you? I mean, to my mind, "capturing" has quite different connotations. If you stand accused of "capturing" someone, then what that implies to me is that you probably snatched them off the street, or that if you did abduct them from their own home, then you thereafter took them somewhere else. Yeah, yeah. I know, I know. It's a real bummer, isn't it? -- Elkins, mentally cursing her own scruples, even as she hopes that the word "capturing" will prove to be just yet another example of JKR's sloppy writing. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sun May 19 12:27:04 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 12:27:04 -0000 Subject: Neville as Witness (was Re: TBAY: Memory Charm Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38880 Elkins fretted: > Oh. I can't just *believe* that I'm doing this. But sometimes you > really do just have to go with What Is Right over What Is Interesting. > > > > Yeah. Okay. All right. > > Not only is it nowhere stated in canon that the Longbottoms were > attacked at home, but the canon actually suggests that it did *not* > happen in their own home. Look. > > Crouch's summary of the charges against the Pensieve Four begins > with: > > "The four of you stand accused of capturing an Auror -- Frank > Longbottom -- and subjecting him to the Cruciatus Curse..." > > Yup. That's right. "Capturing." > > Now, you really don't call it "capturing" when somebody is assaulted > in his very own home, do you? I mean, to my mind, "capturing" > has quite different connotations. If you stand accused of > "capturing" someone, then what that implies to me is that you > probably snatched them off the street, or that if you did abduct them > from their own home, then you thereafter took them somewhere else. Buck up, Elkins! Pull yourself together! There are lots of ways that the Longbottom torture can take place right in front of Neville's wide eyes, which is the only thing that really matters. First, Neville is really young. If the DEs "captured" Frank and his wife, then Neville is most likely right there with them. So it doesn't matter whether they were captured at home or not -- Neville is still right there watching the whole thing. Second, if the DEs grab Frank, his wife and Neville off the street, they have to have a nice place to torture them where they won't be interrupted. It is quite possible that they took the Longbottoms back to their home, especially if they figured Frank might have files or whatnot that contained information they'd need. Now, as for me, I strongly favor the Torture Begins At Home scenario. After all, shouldn't it be nighttime? Isn't it more dramatic if the DEs burst through the door than if they catch up with the Longbottoms on the street, bonk them on the head and . . . what, tie them to a broomstick? Nah. I'm not troubled by "captured." Cindy (who seems to have misplaced her scruples) From naama_gat at hotmail.com Sun May 19 12:42:16 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 12:42:16 -0000 Subject: Neville as Witness (was Re: TBAY: Memory Charm Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38881 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Naama wrote: > > > Erm. Am I the only one with a dark enough mind to realize that if > the > > torturing DEs had Neville there, in the house with his parents, > they > > would have used torture on him as the best and quickest means to > get > > what they want from the parents? Can you imagine a parent not > > breaking down under threat or actual torture of her child? > > That's one of the reasons I just can't buy the Neville as > eyewitness > > theories. If he was there, he would have either gone through > terrible > > torture (in which case, why isn't he insane also?) or already be > > dead. Cindy: > > There might be a few reasons why Neville didn't receive his own > extended round of the Cruciatus Curse: > > 1. According to Crouch Sr., the DEs tried something similar to what > you suggest. They tortured Frank, and then "when he would not give > you information" they tortured his wife. At this point, even if the > DEs considered moving on to torture Neville, the DEs may have either > figured Frank really didn't have information or he was insane. What I am suggesting, is that if Neville was there, they would have tortured him first - to break down the parents (then why didn't they first torture the wife, you ask. Well.. maybe they didn't think very highly of marital love? ) > > 2. Even DEs aren't evil enough to torture a small child. Nope, sorry. People who kill and torture other people for *fun* would have no scruples to torture a child in order to achieve an important goal. > > 3. Maybe DEs know that if you torture anyone long enough, they'll > Crack if they have the information. There was no benefit to > continuing the torture with Neville. Like I said, they would have begun with Neville. > > 4. Perhaps the assault was interrupted before they had the chance > to move on to torturing Neville. Ditto. > > Now as for me, I'm still waiting for an answer to why the DEs didn't > use the undisputed quickest and most efficient way to get the > information out of Frank -- The Imperius Curse. Or, for that matter, why did Voldemort bother torturing Bertha? Definitely an inconsistency in the story, I'd say. Imperius and the Veritaserum, in my opinion, are very problematic in that sense (as is the Time Turner). You can just solve so many things by just using these things. E.g., if you want to know what happened at some point in the past, why not use the Time Turner to get there? You could arrive covered with an invisibility cloak, in order to avoid changing the past. Why don't they use Veritaserum on every suspect DE? Etc. Naama From jamminjerry at madnessmansion.com Sun May 19 12:20:20 2002 From: jamminjerry at madnessmansion.com (Jarrod Jicha) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 08:20:20 -0400 Subject: Drakoys treatment in GOB, was: Should Saw It? In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020518215823.01f6bec0@mail.earthlink.net> References: <14e.e0dd76e.2a17d5b9@aol.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020519081338.009edb30@mail.madnessmansion.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38882 Amanda wrote: >Several people have posted that Crouch/Moody's treatment of Malfoy in >chapter 14 of GOF was extreme. Call me cruel, but, the first time I read >that passage, I thought it was extremely humorous. Well, I would like to second this notion. I not only thought it was humorous, but I thought the treatment was justice at its finest. True, maybe he went a little overboard, but I think that Malfoy had it coming for a long time. Amanda also writes >unless J. K. Rowling specifically states that he is redeemable, or will be >redeemed, I'll be perfectly content to look at him as a villain of some sort. I don't think this is going to happen. Draco has been mean ever since we have known him. True, people can change, but I just don't see it happening in this case. Now, if by some stroke of miracle, Draco saves Harry somehow, or he starts acting good for a change, I will be the first to admit that I was wrong. Jarrod From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun May 19 12:56:05 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 12:56:05 -0000 Subject: Evil and Slytherin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38883 Delurking and making my first post in fear and trembling... James (Archaologee) writes <38878> >Slytherins.... >The books are told from Harry's pov. >Harry was almost put in slytherin. >He dislikes the people from slytherin he encounters and holds his >own house paramount. >Of course he sees the slytherins a evil, he was so worried that he >was almost put there he even goes for a second opinion (whilst left >alone in Dumbledore's office) he loves his house and doubts himself, >he wants to bury any idea that he may belong anywhere else. So... He >vilifies the other place to make it easier to defend his inclusion in >the place he wants to be. >Forgive the pop. psycology (some of my friends would kill me for >that), I know it's not that simple - but it does explain why he is so >unwilling to see good in the Slytherins or the vitues of that house >(despite Dumbledore's championing of their cause - a sign that JKR >doesn't see them as all evil) I think James has a good point there. Harry is very unwilling to see any good in Slytherin - and we are seeing things exclusively from his pov. We know that one of JKR's themes throughout the books is the unfair way the WW treats many minority groups-particularly in PoA and GoF - and usually Harry, who was brought up outside the WW, can see this very clearly, and doesn't buy into it. But I'm beginning to wonder. Harry's opinion of Slytherin is first coloured by his meeting with Draco - who he doesn't like, and who spouts some pretty nasty opinions (PS/SS, UK paperback pp 60-61). Then he gets told about Slytherin by Hagrid: "There's not a single witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin. You-know-who was one." (pp 61-62) At this point, Hagrid is almost the only person eleven year old Harry can remember who's ever been nice to him. He doesn't know anything about the WW, and he's going to treat whatever Hagrid says as 'true'. And certainly, most of the non-Slytherin WW shares the same opinion. Thereafter he sees House Slytherin through that prejudice - he is consistently told that Snape is trustworthy, but doesn't trust him; he notices only Draco and his nasty little gang and dismisses evidence of 'good' Slytherins - in GoF how much courage did it take for that minority of Slytherins to stand up and salute him? (GoF, UK hardback p627) He assumes that being in Slytherin would have been bad for him - despite the Sorting Hat twice telling him he'd have done well there, and despite the fact that in CoS Dumbledore never says that being in Slytherin would have been bad for him - he only says that Harry has chosen to be a true Gryffindor (CoS, UK paperback p.244-245) The question is, is 'ain't no such thing as a good Slytherin' JKR's own opinion? Or are the readers being set up for a nice big bang? Where Harry has to acknowledge that he has his own nasty little prejudices - or that, like Draco, he has taken on his father's prejudices? Pip (who will now sneak away and hope this hasn't already been discussed in detail). From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Sun May 19 14:22:07 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 10:22:07 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Evil Draco? Dead Draco? Message-ID: <137.e581c24.2a190f0f@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38884 In a message dated 5/19/2002 2:35:30 AM Eastern Daylight Time, oppen at cnsinternet.com writes: << For that matter...let's just suppose for a minute that Draco _did_ want to turn against his daddy's view of things. So, he goes around saying things like "Oh, Muggle-born wizards and witches are just peachy---and so is Hagrid! The Dark Lord's got to have been on drugs! I think that all Death Eaters should go snog a Dementor!" _How_ long do you think it would take for the Stones-that-Speak (an Effinger reference there---R.I.P.) to shop him to their fathers, or to his? >> I agree with this....even if Draco wanted to pull away from his father, he deffinately wouldn't be able to run around declaring that Voldemort was a brainless idiot. Subtle things, such as Draco warning the Trio of the DE's in GoF, show that maybe, just maybe, Draco has some desire to do good. <<>> While that would be an interesting plot twist, and quite dark and angsty, I'd have to say that I'd rather see Draco alive for the remainder of the books. I just have this feeling that somehow, Draco will be able to change his life. Even if he doesn't align himself with Dumbledore and Co., maybe he will at least be able to get away from his father and the DE's. Although it would be interesting for Lucius to harm Draco and leave him for dead, only to have him come back and some how get rid of his father. *Chelsea* who wants to see Draco make a change! From jbryson at richmond.infi.net Sun May 19 15:51:48 2002 From: jbryson at richmond.infi.net (tex23236) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 15:51:48 -0000 Subject: Tortured Neville: was Neville as Witness (was Re: TBAY: Memory Charm Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38885 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Elkins fretted: > There are lots of ways that the Longbottom torture can take place > right in front of Neville's wide eyes, which is the only thing that > really matters. > > First, Neville is really young. If the DEs "captured" Frank and his > wife, then Neville is most likely right there with them. So it > doesn't matter whether they were captured at home or not -- Neville > is still right there watching the whole thing. > I'm thinking maybe Neville may have been tortured. He didn't go mad because... er... He was young and resilient? Maybe. and maybe he is at bottom a very strong wizard. If Voldy could kill both Harry's parents and not Harry, maybe the DE's could break both Neville's parents and not him. Huh? He'd still be messed up, though. Maybe Harry is messed up, too. So maybe Rita Skeeter is partly right about Harry, and her articles are really forshadowing something inside Harry that he will have to fight. Ditto Neville, of course, unless he is the one JKR chooses to kill off in OoP, maybe after one last, huge Trio-saving blast from his wand. Tex From skelkins at attbi.com Sun May 19 16:17:14 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 16:17:14 -0000 Subject: Cracking Frank (was Neville As Witness) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38886 In response to Cindy's suggestion the the DEs didn't get around to torturing EyeWitness!Neville until Frank had already lost his mind, at which point they decided there would be no point, Naama wrote: > What I am suggesting, is that if Neville was there, they would have > tortured him first - to break down the parents... Yeah, I'm with Naama here. *Especially* if they had his wife there as well. See, that way you get two types of pressure in one. You get the tortured toddler pressure, which is pretty harsh in and of itself, and then you also stand a very good chance of getting the wife to do half your job for you by applying a bit of pressure of her own. You know, the "Frank, *do* something! *Stop* them!" sort of pressure. I mean, that would be by far the best strategy. Any self- respecting sadist would have realized that. What? What are you all looking at? We're just talking *hypothetically* here, okay? Naama: > (then why didn't they first torture the wife, you ask. Well.. maybe > they didn't think very highly of marital love? ) Because she wasn't there either. Not at first. "The four of you stand accused of capturing an Auror. . . .You are further accused...of using the Cruciatus Curse on Frank Longbottom's wife, when he would not give you information." The phrasing does make it seem quite likely that they first captured only Frank. When they couldn't get him to talk, *then* they sent someone out to nab his wife. If you really want a DEPRECIATION, or a "Cover Your Tracks" style memory charm theory (one which proposes that Neville was given a memory charm by a Death Eater to prevent him from giving damaging testimony), though, then I suppose that you could imagine that once the culprits found that even torturing Frank's wife was *still* not sufficient to crack him, then *that* was when they sent someone out to look for his son -- but were forced to flee the scene before their colleague returned with Neville in tow. Their colleague, having already abducted Neville, then got wind of the fact that the game was up, panicked, Memory Charmed the kid, dumped him somewhere, and fled. This scenario adheres to canon's suggestion that the Longbottoms' condition was known to the public for quite some time before an arrest was made ("The Ministry was under great pressure to catch those who had done it," says Dumbledore), as well as sparing Neville from having actually witnessed any parent-torture at all. It does, however, offer a suggestion as to what the plot-relevant information hidden by his memory charm might be: namely, the identity of that unknown fifth conspirator. Cindy, rather uncharacteristically sweetly, suggested: > > Even DEs aren't evil enough to torture a small child. Naama wasn't biting: > Nope, sorry. People who kill and torture other people for *fun* > would have no scruples to torture a child in order to achieve an > important goal. Oh, but they don't kill and torture *wizards* for fun! They only kill and torture *Muggles* for fun. Whenever we've seen or heard about DEs killing or torturing wizards, there has always been some practical motive for it -- even if it's sometimes a rather dubious one. Even Voldemort himself doesn't really spend all of that time torturing Harry in the graveyard just for kicks; he does it to prove to his Death Eaters that he *can.* But still. Restoring Voldemort to power was obviously the most important thing in the world to those guys at that particular moment in time, so I very much doubt that they would have allowed even great big pure-blooded toddler eyes to stand in their way. As for the Imperius quibble, though... Cindy: > Now as for me, I'm still waiting for an answer to why the DEs > didn't use the undisputed quickest and most efficient way to get > the information out of Frank -- The Imperius Curse. The Imperius Curse? Oh, please. Frank Longbottom was a trained Auror. I'm sure that he knew how to resist the Imperius Curse. It is a skill that can be taught -- otherwise, why would Dumbledore have asked Crouch/Moody to cover it in his DADA class? -- and while Crouch/Moody does concede that some people can never get the hang of it, other people can, given the proper training. I'd be willing to bet that you don't become an Auror unless you're one of those people who can. -- Elkins From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sun May 19 16:05:01 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 16:05:01 -0000 Subject: Evil and Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38887 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > Thereafter he sees House Slytherin through that prejudice - he is > consistently told that Snape is trustworthy, but doesn't trust him; > he notices only Draco and his nasty little gang and dismisses > evidence of 'good' Slytherins - in GoF how much courage did it take > for that minority of Slytherins to stand up and salute him? (GoF, UK > hardback p627) He assumes that being in Slytherin would have been bad > for him - despite the Sorting Hat twice telling him he'd have done > well there, and despite the fact that in CoS Dumbledore never says > that being in Slytherin would have been bad for him - he only says > that Harry has chosen to be a true Gryffindor (CoS, UK paperback > p.244-245) What about that dream Harry had the night after sorting? Where the voice from under Quirrel turban told him to transfer to Slytherin, if I remember right. I wonder if it was Voldemort-induced dream. In the morning Harry did not even remember he dreamt anything. And the source of the voice is pretty suspicious - at this stage Harry did not have any conscious or subconscious reason to connect Quirrel with the dark side. So, why would Voldemort want him in Slytherin? And, if he is able to influence dreams, may be Professor Snape also had a little magical dream that night? Something telling him to befriend the boy and make sure he asks to be transferred? Which, of course puts Snape's subsequent behaviour in interesting light. > > The question is, is 'ain't no such thing as a good Slytherin' JKR's > own opinion? Or are the readers being set up for a nice big bang? > Where Harry has to acknowledge that he has his own nasty little > prejudices - or that, like Draco, he has taken on his father's > prejudices? I'm thinking of "Three musketeers" for some reason. Even D'Artagnian recognised eventually that the other side is not evil per se, and if his first friends were not musketeers, he could as easily become a cardinal's guard. And Richelieu would make a splendid Head of Slytherin, no doubt about it. :-) Irene From jmt59home at aol.com Sun May 19 16:13:29 2002 From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 16:13:29 -0000 Subject: Neville as Witness (was Re: TBAY: Memory Charm Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38888 > > Naama wrote: > > > > > Erm. Am I the only one with a dark enough mind to realize that if > > the > > > torturing DEs had Neville there, in the house with his parents, > > they > > > would have used torture on him as the best and quickest means to > > get > > > what they want from the parents? Can you imagine a parent not > > > breaking down under threat or actual torture of her child? > > > That's one of the reasons I just can't buy the Neville as > > eyewitness > > > theories. If he was there, he would have either gone through > > terrible > > > torture (in which case, why isn't he insane also?) or already be > > > dead. Hence why a memory charm was needed. It is easier to re-educate a younge child, it may not even show that much. > Cindy: > > > > There might be a few reasons why Neville didn't receive his own > > extended round of the Cruciatus Curse: > > > > 1. According to Crouch Sr., the DEs tried something similar to > what > > you suggest. They tortured Frank, and then "when he would not give > > you information" they tortured his wife. At this point, even if > the > > DEs considered moving on to torture Neville, the DEs may have > either > > figured Frank really didn't have information or he was insane. > > What I am suggesting, is that if Neville was there, they would have > tortured him first - to break down the parents (then why didn't they > first torture the wife, you ask. Well.. maybe they didn't think very > highly of marital love? ) Or mayby it was Frank's wife who had the information and Frank was saying he knew to put people off the scent and protect her hence the order, Frank could have cracked or they knew so they tortured her husband first to get her to crack then tortured her. but there still is the problem of Neville, mayby he escaped to get help and was hiding. > Cindy > > Now as for me, I'm still waiting for an answer to why the DEs > didn't > > use the undisputed quickest and most efficient way to get the > > information out of Frank -- The Imperius Curse. Naama > Or, for that matter, why did Voldemort bother torturing Bertha? > Definitely an inconsistency in the story, I'd say. Imperius and the > Veritaserum, in my opinion, are very problematic in that sense (as is > the Time Turner). You can just solve so many things by just using > these things. E.g., if you want to know what happened at some point > in the past, why not use the Time Turner to get there? You could > arrive covered with an invisibility cloak, in order to avoid changing > the past. Why don't they use Veritaserum on every suspect DE? Etc. The veritaserum may work like an antibiotic, some peoploe are imune and would have no effect. It could also be a very recent thing. Just because it a truth potion, doesn't mean that it will uncover forgotten memories, if they can't remember, they are not lying. Also, a DE doesn't have to speak, B.C Jnr, was semi concious after all and not in control. A time turner would have problems to it like Hermione said. Could someone really stand back and watch, even Harry found it hard. You could change something by accident. The imperius curse, same as the veritaserum, won't help memory loss and some people can fight it like Harry. Dogberry From pennylin at swbell.net Sun May 19 17:40:24 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 12:40:24 -0500 Subject: Children's books/Planning all seven; Potterverse Coherence References: Message-ID: <012601c1ff5c$41fd06a0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38889 Hi -- A battered & bruised, but determined, James posits: <<>>>> I know that in the letter she wrote to her agent Chris Little, trying to sell him on the manuscript, and shown on the recent biography documentary of JKR, her wording says something about this book being written for or appropriate for children ages 9-12. But, when we last discussed this, Amy Z quite rightly pointed out that this was (a) her view about the first book and only the first book, and (b) was written with the *purpose* of getting her book published. In recent months I've given alot of thought to the concept of the "market" or "target audience" for some things I'm working on (which could, incidentally, go either way: children or adults). It seems to me that there's a difference between what you the writer might think of as your target audience and what you know the publisher will *think* is the target audience. In other words, JKR may have been savvy enough to know by that point to know that she should try to sell it as a children's novel. She apparently received a fair few rejections before Chris Little took her on as a client & sold the manuscript to Bloomsbury. There's no telling whether the letter that was shown on the Biography special was the basic cover letter she had used from the beginning or if it was a revised version based on her history of multiple rejection notes. As Amy pointed out a few months ago I think -- we don't know really what JKR thinks or will think about the "target audience" of the later books. I think PS/SS *is* appropriate for 9-12 yr olds. But, I don't think the *series* constitutes a "children's series." And, more importantly, I think it's better to look at everything JKR has said about her audience and her intentions *since* the first book was published. Below are links to several interviews where she explicitly says, time and again, that she didn't set out to write for children (or write fantasy!), doesn't write with a target group in mind and doesn't intend to change her plans for the sensibilities of her younger readers: http://www.scholastic.com/harrypotter/author/interview.htm http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/July_2000_Malcolm_Jones_Newsweek.htm http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/feature/-/6230/002-9306298-5740852 http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/entertainment/newsid_944000/944728.stm There are others that don't appear to have online links ... but that's the gist. The most comprehensive one on this topic, IMO, is a 2-part interview that appeared in Entertainment Weekly in August 2000 -- couldn't find any online links to it though. I said: > The books are not, IMO, "meant" for children. They have a > protagonist who is a child when the series begins. Harry and his > friends will be adults (or late-term adolescents if you're unable > to stomach the notion that 17/18 yr olds are adults) at the end of > the series (if they survive). The books have so far been marketed > to children, but I think even the publishers have now realized > that this series has unprecedented cross-generational appeal. I > also think that the publishers are going to have a very, very hard > time marketing OOP to the "9-12" yr old set. Barb responded: <<<>>> Yes, the more I think about it, the less likely it seems that the marketing can continue to narrowly slot the books as "9-12." This doesn't mean that there won't be some kids in the 9-12 age group who can read & fully understand what's going on & appreciate the plot & subplots. But, I think many (most?) 9 year olds may have a hard time relating to 15/16 yr old Harry in the same way that they related to 10/11 yr old Harry in PS/SS. Think about it. Isn't there a *huge* difference between 9 yr olds and 16 yr olds? Yes, IMO. Now, for Barb's kids, this isn't likely to be too big a problem. As she said, her kids are probably going to age right along with Harry & his peers at about the right pace. But, what about my 1 year old daughter? By the time she's old enough to read & appreciate PS/SS, all 7 books will probably be available. What do the parents of 8 yr olds in 2010 do? Do they let them start the series, but warn them that they may not want to finish it just yet? Let them figure it out on their own? Let them read all 7 but guide them through it? Let them read the books until they reach the point where they seem uninterested or unable to follow? Tough questions. I just think people need to consider that the adventures of 15/16 yr old Harry in OOP, 16/17 yr old Harry in Book 6 and 17/18 yr old Harry in the final book are not really the adventures of a "child." I personally think he'll be an adult before the end of the final book ... JKR has billed it as a "coming of age" book after all. So, it stands to reason that if Harry survives, he'll be "of age" at the end of the series. I'm not suggesting that the books are all fully "adult novels." I just don't think they are "childrens' books" necessarily either, and I definitely don't think that the final 3 books will qualify for where the books are currently shelved in bookstores ("intermediate fiction: ages 9-12). Interestingly, for example, I was recently in a Waldenbooks & looking for a particular childrens' author. I noted that the HP books are shelved in intermediate fiction but C.S. Lewis' Narnia series is shelved in "young adult." These classifications seem so arbitrary and bizarre IMO. COHERENCE IN THE POTTERVERSE -- David asked: They are, I admit, based on the way I read the first three books, in turn based on my experience of the types of literature out of which HP seems to have sprung. If you read the Jennings series by Anthony Buckeridge (or any other school series), or the Discworld series by Terry Pratchett (or most other fantasy series: I except Tolkien, of course), it is obvious that you are reading a collection of episodes loosely linked together in the same fictional environment. In the school series there is usually not even any attempt to pretend that the characters are getting any older.>>>>>> But, JKR has said that she really views the series as one long novel, broken into 7 convenient chunks. I don't think that HP was ever intended to be episodic, and I don't think it *is* episodic. We are gradually learning more & more about the central mysteries of the series in each successive books, like layers being peeled away. I think this is purposeful. I think the little details that get planted in earlier books and take on more importance in a later book are planted in the early volumes with this in mind. <<<<< In GOF, it never occurred to me that Polyjuice had been *foreshadowed* in COS, even after Crouch was revealed: I assumed that Crouch was not even a twinkle in JKR's eye when Hermione brewed Polyjuice for the first time.>>>>>> Fascinating! Really? See, I definitely assume that she knows exactly what she's doing when she plants these details in the earlier books. She did spend years plotting out the stories & researching and making voluminous notes. I think she is likely changing small details that turn out to be problematic as Barb mentions ... but I think she knows exactly where she's going with the overall story arc. Are you suggesting David that she wrote PS/SS and then said to herself, "Okay, so what happens next to Harry?" and then set out to develop from whole cloth the events of CoS? I realize you didn't know it at the time, because you mention that you read the first 3 books & then read secondary materials like interviews with JKR, but it's very obvious to me from her statements that she has a grand master plan. I don't think she ever intended them to be "episodic" and she recalls asking her agent or publisher at an initial meeting how he felt about "sequels." She then proceeded, apparently, to outline the whole plot & story arc for the planned 7 volumes. I think "sequels" (and especially her statement about viewing the series as one very long novel, broken into 7 parts) is a strong indicator that her books are not, and were never intended to be, episodic. Funny. I don't suppose I read any interviews or book reviews or anything of that nature when I picked up SS for the first time. I read it, immediately picked up CoS, and then immediately picked up POA, devouring them all within the space of a week. I then searched out everything I could find on Rowling or the books. But, it never occurred to me that the books were episodic in the nature that you suggest, David. While I didn't *know* there was a grand master plan in the works, I think I must have suspected as much. <<<>>>>>> Well, I know in that recent biography special on JKR, she states that she knows *everything* about the characters. She said something like "I know things the readers don't need to know, but that's as it should be. You want the person in control to have the full picture in mind" (that's a loose paraphrase by the way). I don't know why she *would* bluff about that. I think there are things within her magical fictional world that she may not have thought through in the same way that some of us have, and I'd like to think she's spending this extra time with OOP to minimize or eliminate things that just don't add up when scrutinized closely. But, I do believe whole-heartedly that she has a firm handle on her characters and their backgrounds & futures. I just wish she understood how badly so many of her fans want to know *everything.* I think she should eventually publish every little note she's ever scribbled regarding the Potterverse. <<<>>>>> Well, as is probably fairly obvious, I don't think her stories spring from "episodic" tales, particularly "episodic boarding school" tales. I don't think the HP series bears any resemblance at all to books such as the Nancy Drew & Hardy Boy mysteries or the Bobbsey Twins. I can't comment on Enid Blyton as I've not yet ever read any of her books (likewise can't comment on any of the other "boarding school" genre books that are sometimes mentioned as a point of comparison). IMO, the books that bear the most structural resemblance (but no resemblance substantively) to HP are the 7 "Little House" books by Laura Ingalls Wilder (in which the protagonist matures from a young child (younger than Harry at the beginning of SS) to an adult woman who has just married). But, that's just a structural comparison. I think JKR draws from so many different sources that it's difficult to pin down the exact roots of her series to any one "genre." Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sun May 19 17:40:47 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 17:40:47 -0000 Subject: TBAY: The Night The Jabberknoll Screamed Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38890 Well, nothing clears the mind like having a yellow flag bounced directly off your *skull*, I always say. ;-) I have decided to use the resulting lucid moment to think through what might have happened the night the Longbottoms were tortured. In my never-ending quest to establish the canonical authenticity of Reverse Memory Charm Neville, I have re-worked MATCHINGARMCHAIR (Marooned at the Court Hearing, Ill-fated Neville Got a Reverse Memory Charm, Hatching Amnesia-Invoking Results) to beef up the canon substantially. Before we dive into this, I feel obligated to warn you all in advance. The Night The Jabberknoll Screamed was a gruesome evening. Not pretty. As bad as they come. Have your FEATHERBOAS at the ready, because you might need them to comfort yourselves when you're at home. In your bed. All alone. In the dark. **************** By way of background, I believe that there are lots of reasons to dismiss the idea that Neville received a Traditional Memory Charm (the kind Bertha Jorkins received) that impaired his magical ability and memory. Thankfully, Elkins covered many of these objections in the fabulous Memory Charm Symposium (Messages 38,812, 38,813 and 38,848). I have repeatedly and steadfastly maintained that (1) the Traditional Memory Charm theory is too obvious and therefore is not JKR's style; (2) that Neville was likely too young to have remembered the torture and so did not need a Benevolent Memory Charm; (3) if the Pensieve Four were to trouble themselves with Neville, they would have simply killed him; and (4) most Memory Charm theories aren't very Bangy and don't properly account for how the Pensieve Four were apprehended. That last is a controversial claim, to be sure, but it needs to be said. ;-) Now. If Neville doesn't have a Traditional Memory Charm, then what does he have? I have always advocated the Reverse Memory Charm. But it is actually *more* likely that Neville was given a Memory Charm Potion ? which is, I contend, a potion that *enhances* memory so that witnesses can recount events. And the key to it all is the Jabberknoll. According to Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, p. 23. "Jobberknoll: "The Jobberknoll (northern Europe and America) is a tiny blue, speckled bird which eats small insects. It makes no sound until the moment of its death, at which point it lets out a long scream made up of every sound it has ever heard, regurgitated backwards. Jobberknoll feathers are used in Truth Serums and Memory Potions." With that canon on the table and our FEATHERBOAs in our laps, here's what I think happened the night the Longbottoms were tortured. *************** Frank is home with his family after another long day at the office, and the Longbottoms are doing whatever it is that wizard families do in their spare time. Now that Voldemort has fallen and, in Dumbledore's words, "everyone thought they were safe", the Longbottoms pay a lot less attention to home security than they once did. This proves to be a costly mistake. The Pensieve Four (the Lestranges, Crouch Jr. and Fourth Man) show up and barge their way into the Longbottom home. Why don't the Longbottoms flee? Who knows. Maybe they were asleep and the Pensieve Four sneaked up on them. Maybe they were friendly with one of the Pensieve Four (Fourth Man or Crouch Jr.). Take your pick. Now personally, I like to think that Crouch Jr., being young and impressionable, is the key to how the Pensieve Four got the drop on the Longbottoms. Sirius tells us that Crouch Jr. "was caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd managed to talk their way out of Azkaban." This suggests that the other three had been sent to Azkaban, but Crouch Jr. had not. He was a neophyte to being an Evil DE. Or he was totally innocent and had no idea *why* Mrs. Lestrange was so interested in finding the Longbottom home, but he agreed to help out. Besides, it certainly makes sense that Popular Auror Frank would know Crouch Sr., the head of Magical Law Enforcement, and therefore know Crouch Sr.'s family ? including Crouch Sr.'s accomplished young namesake. After all, Crouch Sr. babbles to Harry that he is proud of his son and says, "My wife and son will be arriving shortly, we are attending a concert with Mr. and Mrs. Fudge." If Crouch Jr. socializes with the future Minister of Magic, it isn't such a stretch to think that he also knows the Longbottoms. Yup, that's right. We have ourselves yet another Ambush! Crouch Jr. set up Frank Longbottom! Crouch Jr. shows up on the doorstep, Frank recognizes him immediately as Crouch Sr.'s terrific boy and swings the door open. Oh yeah. That's what we need ? another Ambush scenario! Before the Longbottoms can apparate away or escape or do anything else, they've all been captured. Mrs. Lestrange, who is probably the ringleader based on her Take- Charge Demeanor in the Pensieve, starts off with the Imperius Curse. Now, there's nothing in canon that says anyone used the Imperius Curse on the Longbottoms. But come now. The logical way to get the information out of the Longbottoms is with the Imperius Curse. It's fast, and it's a whole lot more quiet and easy on the nerves than all that ear-splitting crying and screaming. But the Imperius Curse doesn't work, does it? That's because Frank and his wife have *no idea* where Voldemort is. I mean, really. If popular Frank the Auror knew Voldemort's whereabouts, Frank would go finish off Voldemort himself. Frank wouldn't stay home eating comfort food with his family. Frank doesn't resist the Imperius Curse (oh, he tries, though, he really does), and Frank is not playing the hero; he just doesn't have the information. Now I take note of Elkins' recent suggestion that Aurors probably are trained to resist the Imperius Curse and can't easily be controlled by it. Ah, but they can! When Dumbledore finds Real Moody in the trunk, he says, "Stunned ? controlled by the Imperius Curse . . . " Nah, Mrs. Lestrange ought to know to at least *try* the Imperius Curse (perhaps after Stunning Frank) before taking it to the next level ? the Cruciatus Curse. Anyway, Mrs. Lestrange, perhaps thinking that Frank is just resisting the Imperius Curse, decides to turn up the heat. She was never one to take "no" for an answer, unfortunately. She starts hitting Frank with the Cruciatus Curse. Again and again and again, he swears that he doesn't know where Voldemort is, and each time he says this, he gets another Cruciatus blast. Mrs. Lestrange doesn't believe a word Frank is saying, and the unspeakable torture just goes on and on and on. Finally, Frank collapses into a wreck of a wizard who doesn't even move or make a sound when Mrs. Lestrange hits him with the Cruciatus Curses. Frank is Finished. Mrs. Lestrange is getting rather panicky now, isn't she? I mean, she talked her way out of Azkaban specifically to find Voldemort, she hatched the "Torture Frank Half To Death Plan" and it *isn't working*. Desperate, she turns to Frank's wife (which is really a long shot anyway because Frank's wife is almost certainly just Frank's wife and not an Auror). Mrs. Lestrange figures it is worth a shot, on the off chance that Frank said something Important to his wife. After a long while, a very long while, Mrs. Longbottom succumbs and collapses on the floor with Frank. She, too, is Finished. This is just not working out *at all*, Mrs. Lestrange decides. In retrospect, she realizes that it was a mistake to start off torturing Frank -- now he is useless for anything other than satisfying the intellectual curiosity of the doctors at St. Mungos. "I was *never* any good at making decent plans," she chastises herself. "That's how I wound up in Azkaban in the first place; when will I ever learn? I am so darn *impulsive*. I have *got* to start writing things down and working out the details *beforehand*," she mutters to herself. She surveys the situation. There is an 18-month old toddler in the corner, crying, sucking his thumb. There are two adults catatonic on the floor. There is nothing to be gained by torturing the tyke; there is nothing to be gained by killing the tyke because he is too young to give evidence against her. So the Pensieve Four just leave, taking care to fire the Dark Mark into the sky over the Longbottom's house, just because . . . well, that's what Death Eaters *do*, isn't it? Before you know it, owls are arriving at MoM carrying panicked messages about the Dark Mark over the Longbottom's house. The citizens are coming unhinged at the sight of the Dark Mark again. Moody, the best of the Aurors, is dispatched to investigate. But guess who else shows up at the Longbottoms' house? Snape. Snape, the former DE, the nosy Hogwarts professor who spies for Dumbledore. Severus "I'll do anything to be awarded The Order of Merlin" Snape. The guy who given to trying to bring in the bad guys himself, like he tried to do with Quirrel/Lupin/Black. It is common knowledge by this point that Snape is a former DE who spied for Dumbledore before Voldemort fell. Moody, as we learn in the Pensieve scene, Doesn't Care For Our Dear Severus. Not at all. What do Moody and Snape find in the Longbottoms' house? Two inert people and a little kid. No sign of forced entry, even. They have no idea at all what even *happened*. They try "Ennervate" on the Longbottoms, and nothing happens -- they don't even *move*. Moody and Snape are getting mighty worried by this point. It is quiet -- deadly quiet. That's when they hear the faint chirping. Frank Longbottom keeps a Jabberknoll. This makes perfect sense, when you think about it. Frank is an Auror, and he needs to have a supply of Truth Serum for interrogating suspects. Jabberknoll feathers are needed for making this Truth Serum, so Frank has a Jabberknoll, which is quite at home in Northern Europe anyway. But why doesn't Mrs. Lestrange notice the Jabberknoll? Ah, well. Criminals do tend to make these hideous mistakes, don't they? The Jabberknoll is tiny, so she simply may have overlooked it, and she couldn't make out the chirp of a tiny bird what with all of that tortured *shrieking and begging* going on. Besides, Moody and Snape both know all about Jabberknolls, so they know to look around for one. Moody and Snape consider. They know that if they kill the Jabberknoll, it will regurgitate every sound it has ever heard ? backward. They know what they have to do. Snape grabs the tiny Jabberknoll and enthusiastically rings the neck of the Longbottom family pet. The Jabberknoll starts regurgitating the sounds of the attack on the Longbottoms. It is pretty much non-stop shrieking interspersed with the sounds of the Longbottoms begging for their lives, and it goes on for a long, long time. As chilling as this is, it tells Snape and Moody what they need to know ? the Longbottoms were tortured for a very long time. And Snape and Moody can hear the voices of four assailants. But who are the Four Assailants? That's the problem. Snape and Moody have no physical description, and they darn sure can't recognize the voices or make out the words coming out of the Jabberknoll in reverse. The trail is cold already. Unless . . . unless . . . Moody can persuade Snape to make a Memory Potion and feed it to the only witness ? Neville. A Memory Potion to be made from the feathers of the Jabberknoll Snape just executed. A Memory Potion that will enhance Neville's memory so that he can state exactly what happened that night. Oh, Snape wants no part of this, does he? Snape will rub out a little birdie, but he's not up for harming Frank Longbottom's son. The Longbottoms were *popular* and Snape doesn't want to be responsible for what happens to Neville if something goes wrong. Snape has no idea what will happen to Neville if he is given a Memory Potion. Aurors have only used that potion on adults, not little kids. No telling what kind of damage will occur if this potion is used on a small child. Moody and Snape argue, with Moody questioning Snape's loyalty and all. You think Snape and Moody tangled in "The Egg and the Eye?" That was *nothing* compared to the confrontation here where Moody is trying to get Snape to use a Memory Potion on a toddler. Then, Crouch Sr. shows up. Crouch Sr. will stop at *nothing* to catch Dark Wizards, and judging by the flock of owls that were streaming into MoM that night, there's going to be some *serious* pressure for an arrest. "Power hungry" Crouch Sr. isn't going to let one little toddler stand between him and being Minister of Magic, is he? We're talking about "very harsh measures against Voldemort's supporters" Crouch. "Fought violence with violence" Crouch. "Ruthless and cruel" Crouch. Crouch Sr. *orders* Snape to make the Memory Potion right then, and Snape, never being willing to stand up to authority (as demonstrated by his allowing Fudge to bring a dementor into the castle in GoF), caves and does what he is told. Snape makes the Memory Potion, which causes Neville to be able to communicate exactly what happened. But Snape was right about the side effects ? Neville`s memory and magical ability are in fact compromised. Neville's memory of the torture has been permanently enhanced, and he hears the screams of his parents to this day. Ever since Snape gave the potion to Neville against his better judgment, Snape is searching for some sort of potion that will reverse the effects of the Memory Potion on Neville. So far, no luck. Neville in GoF and PoA displays tremendous fear of Snape and Moody. And for good reason, I think. Indeed, I like Elkins' idea that Neville has been crying in the scene where Crouch/Moody takes Neville to his office for tea. Crouch/Moody knows perfectly well that Neville fingered him all those years ago. So, no, Crouch/Moody doesn't give Neville a Memory Charm to help him. And Crouch/Moody doesn't enhance Neville's Memory Charm because Neville doesn't *have* a Traditional Memory Charm. No, Crouch/Moody explains what happened The Night The Jabberknoll Screamed. After all, Snape, Moody, and Crouch Sr. are the only ones who even know about this Memory Potion. Crouch Jr. learns about the whole thing from Real Moody. Crouch/Moody explains to Neville what happened that night and explains that Neville had his memory enhanced with the Memory Potion. Does this make Neville feel better? Heck yeah! Now Neville knows he helped avenge his parents, and he knows all of his problems are *not his fault*. Crouch/Moody wins Neville's trust. Winning Neville's trust proves to be rather useful, doesn't it? Now, I'd like to be able to take credit for the whole Memory Potion thing. I really would. But I can't. No, the person who first proposed a Memory Potion (so far as I know) as an alternative to a Reverse Memory Charm is one of the leading experts on Memory Charms ? Elkins! Here's a bit of what Elkins wrote in Message 35,902: >The Reverse Memory thing wasn't actually a >charm at all. It was a *potion.* >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. Why, thank you, Elkins! Couldn't have said it better myself! Cindy (who desperately wants to make Moody Ever So Evil in this theory, but who thinks it best to introduce these things very slowly) From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Sun May 19 18:14:19 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 18:14:19 -0000 Subject: TBAY: The Night The Jabberknoll Screamed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38891 Am I being thick here (or worse ignorant), but I always assumed the imperious curse made you act a certain way, not think. I never saw anything in the books that said it could do any more than make you do and say what you are told to. Voldemort tells (word for word) harry what to do and say. I can see them saying "jump up and down" or "say "I love Kevin Smith movies but think Ben Afflick has TPS"" but never thought you could say "tell us what you know" as that is not an action command. Harry always has his inner voice when he's under it (although I admit he's special) and all the instructions are direct commands to act in a certain way. It's almost like you cede control of your body to someone else, but not like you are hypnotised or they see\control your mind. If I'm wrong please ignore this and I apologise for clogging your inbox's James From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun May 19 18:27:09 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 18:27:09 -0000 Subject: Cracking Frank (was Neville As Witness) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38892 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > > Oh, please. Frank Longbottom was a trained Auror. I'm sure that > he knew how to resist the Imperius Curse. It is a skill that can be > taught -- otherwise, why would Dumbledore have asked Crouch/Moody to > cover it in his DADA class? -- and while Crouch/Moody does concede > that some people can never get the hang of it, other people can, > given the proper training. > > I'd be willing to bet that you don't become an Auror unless you're > one of those people who can. > > -- Elkins I agree with that completely. *Real* Moody most definately could - even 14-year-old Harry did. I'm *sure* Frank Longbottom did, too. No use of Imperius if the victim doesn't co-operate... And this could be a nod to the Evil!Gran theory too - Frank wasn't obedient enough to suit his mother... I also have another suggestion about 'Neville saw them, but they didn't torture him' - .. the DEs didn't *know* Neville was there. Neville had found his Dad's invisibility cloak or something. And I do think an Auror would have one... -- Finwitch From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sun May 19 19:45:59 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 19:45:59 -0000 Subject: TBAY: The Night The Jabberknoll Screamed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38893 James asked: > Am I being thick here (or worse ignorant), but I always assumed >the > imperious curse made you act a certain way, not think. > > I never saw anything in the books that said it could do any more >than > make you do and say what you are told to. Voldemort tells (word >for > word) harry what to do and say. Weeeellllll . . . I read the scene in the graveyard a bit differently. Voldemort asks Harry if he wants him to do that again. He commands, "Answer me! Imperio!" Voldemort doesn't command, "Say 'No'" So deep inside, Harry knows the "right" answer ("No"), but he resists giving that answer out of pride. Presumably, then, one could use the Imperius Curse to extract information from another by putting the question and commanding, "Answer me!" It would be odd indeed if the one thing Imperius can't make someone do is divulge information. That could be why Crouch Sr. authorized the use of the Imperius Curse on suspects -- much quicker than Truth Serum. That could also be why Sirius felt he had to go into hiding - - Imperius perhaps could make him divulge the location of the Potters. It's OK, though. Maybe Mrs. Lestrange tries the Imperius Curse and Frank throws it off. Or it doesn't work because it won't cause the victim to divulge information. Or she doesn't do it right. It's all the same. The point is that Imperius doesn't work to her satisfaction, so she takes it up a notch to Cruciatus. > It's almost like you cede control of your body to someone else, but > not like you are hypnotised or they see\control your mind. Weeeeeelllll . . . Remember how Hagrid characterized the people who snapped out of the Imperius Curse when Voldemort fell -- they came out of "trances." Sounds a lot like hypnosis, don't you think? > If I'm wrong please ignore this and I apologise for clogging your > inbox's Not to worry. No one is ever "wrong," right? We're all just guessing . . . I mean, engaging in "Creative Theorizing." ;-) Speaking of Creative Theorizing, I messed up a detail in this whole Jabberknoll theory. Jabberknolls make no sound until they die. So there's no chirping that night that alerted Snape and Moody to the existence of the Jabberknoll. It's all good though. The silence of the Jabberknoll is the reason Mrs. Lestrange doesn't know it is there, recording everything. Snape and Moody find it not because of the chirping (as there is no chirping), but because they know to look. Cindy (finding that the devil is in the details) From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sun May 19 17:40:02 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 17:40:02 -0000 Subject: Evil and Slytherin (Harry's Dream) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38894 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "irene_mikhlin" wrote: > What about that dream Harry had the night after sorting? Where the > voice from under Quirrel turban told him to transfer to Slytherin, if > I remember right. Good point! (she says, in a drat-I'd-forgotten-that-bit tone of voice) > I wonder if it was Voldemort-induced dream. In the morning Harry did > not even remember he dreamt anything. And the source of the voice is > pretty suspicious - at this stage Harry did not have any conscious or > subconscious reason to connect Quirrel with the dark side. However... He may have had a subconcious reason to connect Quirrel's *turban* with the dark side (Quirrel himself isn't in the dream) - in the scene at the Sorting Feast Harry's scar hurts him when the back of Quirrel's turban is towards him. Consciously, Harry thinks it's Snape, looking at him. Subconsciously??? > So, why would Voldemort want him in Slytherin? > And, if he is able to influence dreams, Is it a Voldemort-induced dream? I'm sure JKR wants us to *think* it is. But surely Voldemort would be a little more subtle than to tell Harry he 'must' do something. His Tom Riddle persona is, in CoS - he lies to Harry by showing him the exact truth, and remarks that "I've always been able to charm the people I needed" (CoS UK paperback p.228) >may be Professor Snape also > had a little magical dream that night? Something telling him to > befriend the boy and make sure he asks to be transferred? Which, of > course puts Snape's subsequent behaviour in interesting light. > > I take it you mean that he promptly makes sure Harry dislikes him intensely - interesting. It also implies that Voldemort still thinks Snape is loyal. > > The question is, is 'ain't no such thing as a good Slytherin' JKR's > > own opinion? Or are the readers being set up for a nice big bang? > > Where Harry has to acknowledge that he has his own nasty little > > prejudices - or that, like Draco, he has taken on his father's > > prejudices? > > I'm thinking of "Three musketeers" for some reason. Even D'Artagnian > recognised eventually that the other side is not evil per se, and if > his first friends were not musketeers, he could as easily become a > cardinal's guard. And Richelieu would make a splendid Head of > Slytherin, no doubt about it. :-) Wouldn't he just! Pip From cindysphynx at comcast.net Sun May 19 20:04:26 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 20:04:26 -0000 Subject: TBAY: The Night The Jabberknoll Screamed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38895 Oh, Good Grief! I think I am starting to Crack for sure. I overlooked the best answer to James' question: > James asked: > > > I never saw anything in the books that said it could do any more > >than > > make you do and say what you are told to. Real Moody spent an entire year in his own trunk. Crouch Jr. questioned Moody under the Imperius Curse: "I kept him alive, under the Imperius Curse. I wanted to be able to question him. To find out about his past, learn his habits . . ." That proves that you can extract information from someone under the Imperius Curse, doesn't it? Doh! Cindy (who will never get her LOON credentials if she's going to make mistakes like *that*) From blpurdom at yahoo.com Sun May 19 20:10:59 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 20:10:59 -0000 Subject: What did JKR know and when did she know it? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38896 We've been discussing all of the things JKR has planned over the entire seven books, and cross-book foreshadowing, but I think that the most important book for foreshadowing, despite its size, is the first book, into which she put a tremendous number of things that proved important later. There are undoubtedly numerous things that we still don't understand as significant, as we're still missing the last three books of the series. Here's as much as I've been able to glean going quickly through the first couple of chapters: Chapter One: The Boy Who Lived 1. McGonagall as cat Animagus (foreshadowing Animagus plots in books 3 and 4) 2. Some McGonagall/Dumbledore dialogue about Hagrid: "You think it--*wise*--to trust Hagrid with something as important as this?" "I would trust Hagrid with my life," said Dumbledore. "I'm not saying his heart isn't in the right place," said Professor McGonagall grudgingly, "but you can't pretend he's not careless." This both foreshadows Hagrid later getting careless and telling Quirrell about how to get past Fluffy, and possibly gives us a clue to Hagrid's fate in a future book. Perhaps Hagrid dies while saving Dumbledore's life? I somehow don't think that Dumbledore's line is a casual one. It also seems possible that Hagrid will do something else "careless" that is very, very significant. 3. Hagrid borrowing motorcycle from Sirius Black (at this point the good guys still have a good relationship with Sirius, who isn't mentioned again until the beginning of book 3) Chapter Two: The Vanishing Glass 1. Mrs. Figg's broken leg First mention of Mrs. Figg, who seems to be Arabella Figg, of the "old crowd," mentioned by Dumbledore at the end of GoF. Her house smells of cabbage (as does Polyjuice Potion) and the tents they use for the QWC remind Harry of Mrs. Figg's house. The cats may be cats or they may be Kneazles. 2. Dudley and Piers as Doppelgangers Dudley is always described in extremely uncomplimentary terms and his selfishness and self-centeredness later make Harry think of Dudley when he meets Draco Malfoy. When Piers Polkiss is introduced (it's my understanding that "Piers" is a variation on the name "Peter") he is described as "a scrawny boy with a face like a rat. He was usually the one who held people's arms behind their backs while Dudley hit them." Who else does this remind us of? (Someone with the first name Peter and the last initial 'P' who is also a rat and who aids and abets a pepetrator of violence?) 3. Harry and his dreams Harry mentions having a dream of a flying motorcycle (a remnant of a memory of Hagrid delivering him to Privet Drive). Harry has numerous dreams which are not frivolous in subsequent books. 4. The Snake The entire snake episode foreshadows the later Parseltongue revelation in CoS. I don't believe for a minute that she didn't have the basic idea for CoS in her head when she wrote this. Harry freeing the snake is also a wonderful instance of Harry as the one who frees the unjustly imprisoned/oppressed (Dobby, Sirius, Hagrid-- sent to prison during CoS) as well as foreshadowing his own imminent freedom, when he goes away to Hogwarts. And these things are just in the first two chapters! There are loads more throughout the first book. She also employs a great deal of irony as well, as when Harry's baggy clothes (formerly Dudley's) are something that sets him apart and makes him an object of ridicule, and which he hates. Yet--how would you describe wizarding robes EXCEPT "baggy?" It's as though the very clothes he wore were proclaiming him to be a wizard, as though his true nature was seeping out. (You'd think Petunia would want him to blend in more, wouldn't you?) Anyway, that's all I have time for right now. I may chime in with things I've found in Chapters 3 and 4 tomorrow... --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From finwitch at yahoo.com Sun May 19 19:51:23 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 19:51:23 -0000 Subject: TBAY: The Night The Jabberknoll Screamed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38897 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "archeaologee" wrote: > Am I being thick here (or worse ignorant), but I always assumed the > imperious curse made you act a certain way, not think. > > I never saw anything in the books that said it could do any more than > make you do and say what you are told to. Voldemort tells (word for > word) harry what to do and say. I can see them saying "jump up and > down" or "say "I love Kevin Smith movies but think Ben Afflick has > TPS"" but never thought you could say "tell us what you know" as that > is not an action command. > > Harry always has his inner voice when he's under it (although I admit > he's special) and all the instructions are direct commands to act in > a certain way. > > It's almost like you cede control of your body to someone else, but > not like you are hypnotised or they see\control your mind. > > James Also -- Every time Harry's resisted imperius - it's I WON'T. Refusing to act. (Krum obviously *can't* do that - no wonder Sirius was worried - something to do with Durmstrang discipline?) Then, for Crouch Jr. and Real Moody it was *Do NOT move* - for Crouch Sr. "Act normally"-- This sort of *negative* command is obviously harder to resist. As you should a) Decide what to do, b) do it c) resist imperius. Refusing an act only takes c), which in itself is hard enough. Also... Imperius can't make you do something you don't know how to do. A student like Harry and his fellow Gryffindors could not be imperious'ed to put a DA-curse on someone because they don't know how to cast it. (No wonder Durmstrang students aren't trusted - they *know* how to cast the Unforgivables - thy *might* be under Imperious to cast it on you!) -- Finwitch From skelkins at attbi.com Sun May 19 20:53:16 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 20:53:16 -0000 Subject: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR: the Debate Rages On (WAS: Yellow Flags and Jobberkno In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38898 The second part of the Symposium had dragged on longer than she had expected, and Elkins was getting tired. Fortunately, she only had one more theory to cover before the scheduled break: the Reverse Memory Charm Theory, M.A.T.C.HI.N.G.A.R.M.C.H.A.I.R. This would be a breeze. After all, Elkins had once (as she now recalled with some degree of embarrassment) ascribed to the Reverse Memory Charm theory herself. But that had been a long time ago. Back in the halcyon days. Back before she and Cindy had been forced to sever their engagement. Back before Cindy had grown bitter and started carrying around that great big *paddle.* Elkins scanned the audience thoughtfully, wondering if it contained anyone who might now remember that -- or worse yet, call her on it. Fortunately, she seemed to be safe. Eloise might have been a risk, but she had fallen asleep in the armchair and was now mumbling something about Sun Gods and hieroglyphs. Dogberry was far too busy rejecting the entire notion of Memory Charm'd Neville. And Naama was scribbling furiously in her notebook, her head bent far down over what appeared to be an anti-DEPRECIATION argument. Yup. It looked as if Elkins just might get away with this after all. "But speaking of those yellow flag violations..." she began, hoping that no one would notice how really very awkward the segue was, "we now come at last to..." The door at the back of the room flew open. Elkins glanced up, and her voice died in her throat. It was She. The Cinister one herself. And she'd brought her Big Paddle with her. There were shiftings and shufflings and murmerings of dismay as Cindy strode confidently across the room to pour herself a glass of unsweetened Kool-aid and load up her Big Paddle with snacks. The occupants of the front row gathered up their notepads and pencils with trembling hands, scrambling to their feet as Cindy approached to allow her her pick of the best seats. A few of them flashed quick ameliorating grins in her direction as they scurried out into the aisle to relocate to seats further back, but most tried not to meet her eyes. "You don't want to get involved in this," they were telling themselves. "Remember Cedric Diggory." Only Eloise remained seated, snoozing away in her matching armchair. The crowd watched in tense silence as Cindy stared blankly down at the sleeping Eloise, then heaved a huge collective sigh of relief when she merely shrugged and slowly eased herself into the matching matching armchair right beside it. George, grateful for this show of noblesse oblige, stepped forward to offer Cindy a GIANTCUSHION upon which to rest her feet. Cindy kicked it roughly in the direction of the podium and fixed Elkins with a withering stare. Elkins swallowed hard. She looked down at her notes and started leafing through pages, glad of any excuse to avoid meeting Cindy's gaze. Well, she thought. This *will* complicate things. ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> Elkins (citing her canonical objections to Reverse Memory Charm'd Neville): > There's his overall demeanor, and his reaction to the Second Task's > mermaid song, and his reaction to the Dementor on the train... Cindy: > Ah, but that is because you have apparently turned the Dolby sound > up really high to the setting marked "Earsplitting Shrieks". You've > also apparently selected the "Continuous Loop" setting in which > Neville hears these magnified shrieks 24/7. That's very courageous > of you, really it is. Cindy: > But you can tone it down a bit if you like. . . .Personally, I'd > recommend the intermittent Dolby screaming for you, Elkins. That > way, Neville doesn't have to be a complete basket case. There's the > extra added bonus that Neville never knows when he's going to get a > huge blast of his mother's screams. I like the tension there. He > can be brave and heroic at times, and he can be melting cauldrons > at other times. Can you work with that? Well... Er, no, Cindy. See, I can't. Because even if you turn the volume knob all the way down to "intermittent cries of agony," and the frequency dial all the way to "only when Snape picks on Neville in Potions class," you're still left with the problem that Neville ought to *know* what people in pain sound like, and that they really don't sound the slightest bit like a ghost orchestra playing on the musical saw -- which is what the mermaid song from Harry's Egg sounds like. So the Egg Problem still stands. It also doesn't fix the Dementor problem. If Neville had a Reverse Memory Charm, then the Dementor on the train at the beginning of PoA really should have been able to dredge that memory up for him. He would have been reliving the experience of having witnessed his parents being tortured. And if he really had been reliving that experience, then I just can't imagine that he wouldn't have been in far worse shape than Ginny. Or Harry, for that matter. But he wasn't. He was doing better than either of them. Harry passes out. Ginny looks "as bad as Harry feels." But Neville's just pale and shaken. So that's a problem too. > Now, me? I can live with the 24/7 earsplitting shrieking because it > is so Bang-worthy. Yes, yes. It is indeed most cruel and morbid. There's just no question about that. And you *know* how much I like that sort of thing. But it's *wobbly,* Cindy. It really really is. And about that yellow flag violation... ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> Things seemed to be have been going all right, really. So Elkins probably shouldn't have brought up the yellow flag again. But she just couldn't resist, somehow. It must have been the podium. Most of her soft tissues were actually *behind* the podium. This made Elkins feel safe. "I hate to hurl such monstrous accusations in a public forum," she said apologetically (if not altogether sincerely), "but there are times, terrible times, Long Dark Nights of my Soul, when I almost find myself suspecting that Cindy..." Elkins winced, then lowered her voice. "Well, that Cindy might have just made the Reverse Memory Charm *up.*" Cindy raised her eyes from her Symposium Notebook. Her brow furrowed, and her knuckles tightened on her Big Paddle. Elkins froze in place. But it was all right. Cindy seemed to think better of it. Slowly, her grip on her paddle relaxed. From the expression on her face, Elkins imagined that perhaps she was thinking that coerced submission just wouldn't be very satisfying here. That it would be better to try for a genuine and sincere Full-Fledged Conversion. Elkins only felt marginally reassured by this. Perhaps it was just all of this talk about torture and mental domination, but it occurred to her that Winston Smith's conversion at the end of _1984_ was really *very* sincere. For now, though, Cindy seemed to be taking the gentle and easy approach. ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> Cindy: > In fact, I'm glad you mentioned it. Because you have led me toward > a *Huge* Blockbuster New Canon for Reverse Memory Charm Neville. I > can't believe I didn't catch on to this months ago. It's been right > there under my nose the whole time. > OK. It's time for *me* to swing for the fence, so stand back -- > Big Paddle to her shoulder> Cindy: > How about if I find something in canon related to memory that JKR > has already established, something that is right there in black and > white, but something that JKR seems to have intentionally left > vague? Then I will retract my yellow flag accusation. > How about if I can even link it to Truth Serum, which is similar to > the Reverse Memory Charm? Yeah, yeah, Cindy. Spit it out already. > OK, here goes . . . > Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them, p. 23. "Jobberknoll: The > Jobberknoll (northern Europe and America) is a tiny blue, speckled > bird which eats small insects. It makes no sound until the moment > of its death, at which point it lets out a long scream made up of > every sound it has ever heard, regurgitated backwards. Jobberknoll > feathers are used in Truth Serums and Memory Potions." Yeah. Yeah, okay. That's, uh...that's pretty good, actually. Yellow flag retracted. But you've still got the Egg and the Dementor to deal with. The Jobberknoll doesn't fix those. If you really want to convert me to your Reverse Memory Charm cause, then you're going to have to find some way around the Egg and the Dementor. Otherwise, I just can't go for it. And just calling Reverse Memory Bangy and FEATHERBOASish isn't going to convince me. It is indeed true that the Reverse Memory Charm is appealingly cruel and horrid. But it's hardly the *only* appealingly cruel and horrid Memory Charm theory floating around in the Bay, you know. Many far more stable Memory Charm theories give every bit as much Bang for the buck -- and a number of them are every last bit as ghastly as the MATCHING ARMCHAIR. Can't I interest you in a Ministry Cover-up instead? One with an option on Ever So Evil Moody, perhaps? That one's pretty Bangy. Or how about Debbie's Memory Charm Most Foul flavored DEPRECIATION variant? That one has Bang *and* cruelty! Won't you at least try it on for size? Also, I would like to point out that when it comes to the Bang quotient... Well, how to say this? The Reverse Memory Charm actually isn't even all that Bangy to begin with, now, is it? I mean, the idea that Neville might be hearing his parents screaming in torment all the time is indeed cruel, and it does indeed please my featherboas, but it isn't really in the *slightest* bit Bangy. It doesn't offer any opportunities for a Great Character-changing Catalyst, or for a Shocking Revelation, or for a Mind-Blowing Plot Twist, or for an Oscar-worthy Cinematic Moment, or *any* of that. I mean, where's the Bang? What's the Bang supposed to be? In fact... In *fact,* I don't think that Reverse Memory Charm belongs on the Big Bang Destroyer at *all*. I say that it's a *Dud,* and should be stowed away in the hold until it can prove its merit! ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> ><(("> There was a very long silence. Uh-oh, thought Elkins. Now I've done it. -- Elkins From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Sun May 19 21:02:00 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 14:02:00 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neville as Witness (was Re: TBAY: Memory Charm Neville In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <181144362067.20020519140200@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38899 Sunday, May 19, 2002, 4:25:50 AM, cindysphynx wrote: c> Personally, I favor Option 2. That allows our DEs to have a c> conscience, to have depths to which even Evil DEs will not sink. c> That gives us the tension that, at a crucial moment, a DE will c> refuse to do something especially wicked. I always like it when an evil villian is shown to have some bit of decency... I was thinking about this the other day while watching _The Thief of Bagdad_ (1940 version), in one scene of which the evil wizard Jaffar is about to put the Princess under his own version of the Imperious Curse for the purpose of raping her, but he can't bring himself to do it (even though he's not above murdering her father, trying to murder her lover, or erasing her memory). So I'm wondering: Will someone -- Lucius, Wormtail, Draco, or maybe even the Big Guy Himself -- at some critical moment display a spark of decency that ruins their own plans? c> Now as for me, I'm still waiting for an answer to why the DEs didn't c> use the undisputed quickest and most efficient way to get the c> information out of Frank -- The Imperius Curse. Maybe because they were under a memory charm, that only Cruciatus could break (as with Bertha J.)? -- Dave From blpurdom at yahoo.com Sun May 19 21:10:15 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 21:10:15 -0000 Subject: Neville as Witness In-Reply-To: <181144362067.20020519140200@mindspring.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38900 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Dave Hardenbrook wrote: > c> Now as for me, I'm still waiting for an answer to why the DEs > didn't use the undisputed quickest and most efficient way to get > the information out of Frank -- The Imperius Curse. > > Maybe because they were under a memory charm, that only Cruciatus > could break (as with Bertha J.)? The information that was being sought, as I understand it, was the whereabouts of Voldemort. Inasmuch as the Longbottoms probably didn't possess this information (why did anyone think they did? were they on the scene at Godric's Hollow soon after he tried to kill Harry and failed?) they couldn't very well give up what they didn't know. It's quite possible that all kinds of things were tried: Veritaserum, Imperius, Cruciatus, and when they didn't get the answers they wanted, the Death Eaters either a) assumed that the Veritaserum wasn't strong enough, or b) the Longbottoms were too good at overcoming Imperius (they may not even have been trying), or c) that the only way to finally break them would be to torture them until they decided they couldn't take it any more and finally spilled the information. The Longbottoms were probably not under a memory charm because they would need to actually KNOW something and someone else would have need to cast a spell to make them forget whatever they knew. Nothing in canon so far suggests either of these things. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From pennylin at swbell.net Sun May 19 22:14:53 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 17:14:53 -0500 Subject: More on Adult vs. Childrens' Literature; Appropriation of Characters by Fans Message-ID: <014c01c1ff82$99b175e0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38901 Hi all -- This is really not a case of me not knowing when to shut up. I just happened to read a great article in my local newspaper this morning touching on this subject AND was reading the introductory material to the Annotated Huckleberry Finn, which has some really insightful thoughts to add to the mix of this debate. First, here's a link to the news article I was reading -- http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/story.hts/ae/books/news/1414774 It doesn't mention HP incidentally. But the bit that grabbed my attention especially was: "We are very confident of a young audience," he said, "but adults can read it with no sense of a shift in what they are reading. There's that gap in the American canon." Maybe. Is Huckleberry Finn an adult novel that children like or a children's novel that adults like?" Yes, indeed. So, as it happens, I was reading the intro to the Annotated Huck Finn this afternoon, and I find a very interesting discussion on what contemporary critics and fans of Huck Finn thought of its appeal to adults and children in 1885 (and what Twain thought as well). Here are some excerpts from the discussion (er .. The Annotated Huckleberry Finn, edited by Michael Patrick Hearn, published by W.W. Norton & Co., 2001): ***************** "Another problem with Huckleberry Finn was that, as Louisa May Alcott indicated, it was generally marketed, reviewed, and read as just another boy's book. The publishers encouraged this perception by advertising it as uniform with Tom Sawyer, but even that novel, Twain told Howells, "is *not* a boy's book, at all. It will only be read by adults. It is only for adults." "Half-heartedly, Twain gave in to his advisors. ..... In his preface, Twain wrote: "Although my book is intended mainly for the entertainment of boys and girls, I hope it will not be shunned by men and women on that account, for part of my plan has been to try to pleasantly remind adults of what they once were themselves." "Not everyone saw it as a children's book. The San Francisco Chronicle suggested in its March 1885 review 'that upon nine boys out of ten much of the humor, as well as the pathos, would be lost. ...." ******************** So, we have an author who intended his work to be for adults but who gets persuaded that it should be marketed for children instead. Now, JKR wasn't perhaps as strongly sold on the notion that her books were only for adults as Twain ... but she pretty clearly didn't start out with the idea that she was writing children's literature. It makes sense to me that she may have perceived that she stood a better chance of getting it published if she tried to sell it as a children's book. She had to describe some sort of audience in her cover letter after all, and the first book has as its main character a 10/11 yr old boy. I think in 100 years, the classification of HP may end up being as much in debate as Huck Finn and other works are. APPROPRIATION OF A CHARACTER BY THE FANS -- So, still from the Annotated Huck Finn is this very interesting tidbit for those fanfic writers and those of us who aren't so sure we want to know every last bit of what happens to Harry *after* Hogwarts (assuming he lives): Twain was considering a sequel to Tom Sawyer & Huck Finn. Rudyard Kipling interviewed him in 1889, and Twain described to Kipling his proposed plan to write a sequel to Tom Sawyer that would depict two alternate courses of Tom's future. "In one I would make him rise to great honor and go to Congress, and in the other I should hang him. Then the friends and enemies of the book could take their choice. ...... But Kipling protested this double-barreled scheme, insisting that Tom Sawyer "isn't your property anymore. He belongs to us." Very interesting question, that last bit. As I think I've said before, I think I'd prefer to see JKR leave some of it a bit open-ended, even if she does an epilogue. Then again, knowing what her vision for the characters' futures holds its own appeal. I wonder if she will stick to the plan to do an epilogue over the next 5 yrs as she completes the series, and if so, how detailed & comprehensive it might be? I also wonder whether the fans' preferences in this regard will change & shift as the 7th volume draws closer. Penny From chetah27 at hotmail.com Sun May 19 23:14:50 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 23:14:50 -0000 Subject: Evil Draco? Dead Draco? In-Reply-To: <137.e581c24.2a190f0f@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38902 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Chelsea2162 at a... wrote: > I agree with this....even if Draco wanted to pull away from his father, he > deffinately wouldn't be able to run around declaring that Voldemort was a > brainless idiot. Subtle things, such as Draco warning the Trio of the DE's in > GoF, show that maybe, just maybe, Draco has some desire to do good. I guess this gives Snape and Draco something more in common- each may be leaning towards the side of Good, but they can't openly show their support. And I don't think Draco would ever go around openly spouting such things- he may be a coward, but he does have some wits about him. And thinking about the company he and his family keep, he could easily see what a wrong move that would be. And since we don't know Draco's thoughts, we really can't tell if he's harbouring any good intentions at all. Eric Oppen suggested: scenario: Draco tries to break away from his daddy's idea that he will be a > DE, and reaches out to the Trio...and just as they are deciding that it's > all a trick to fool them, they stumble across Draco's lifeless corpse, with > the words "Death to all who repudiate the Dark Lord!" written on the wall. > In Lucius Malfoy's own handwriting, no less...could anybody at Hogwarts ID > that? That would be rather an unexpected twist, and provide a lot of > interesting angst and guilt for the Trio.< Ooh, that would be a very interesting development. I also like to think of how things would develop if Draco were to witness his father's death at the hands of Voldemort. Since he seems to think that his father is oh so powerful, and on the way to being even more powerful, how would such a development shake him? And if his father was killed, and his family sort of layed open to the things that perhaps they had been shielded from so far(say, raids by the MoM?), how would this affect Draco's actions? He'd loose alot of bragging rights... Chelsea again: > While that would be an interesting plot twist, and quite dark and angsty, I'd > have to say that I'd rather see Draco alive for the remainder of the books. I > just have this feeling that somehow, Draco will be able to change his life. > Even if he doesn't align himself with Dumbledore and Co., maybe he will at > least be able to get away from his father and the DE's. Although it would be > interesting for Lucius to harm Draco and leave him for dead, only to have him > come back and some how get rid of his father. *nods* Yes, I can acccept Dead Draco, but I find Devastated Draco, CaughtInTheMiddle Draco, or SelfQuestioning Draco much more intersting. Not that I'm saying any of these are more likely than the other, or that any will be happening in the next book, I just find them to be possibly interesting developments. Oh, and SetforRevenge Draco sounds interesting also. Aldrea From editor at texas.net Mon May 20 01:41:34 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 20:41:34 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Drakoys treatment in GOB, was: Should Saw It? References: <14e.e0dd76e.2a17d5b9@aol.com> <5.1.0.14.0.20020519081338.009edb30@mail.madnessmansion.com> Message-ID: <004901c1ff9f$7a805c00$227d63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38903 This has nothing to do with the post itself. But I have a humble request to the list. I've been the only Amanda around for, oh, forever, and now there is another one. Can we use surnames/epithets? Because things will get confusing; it took me a minute to realize that I had nothing to do with what Jarrod quotes Amanda as saying. Thank you and goodnight. Amanda Prima, Geist (or PrimaGeist, also technically accurate) ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jarrod Jicha" To: Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 7:20 AM Subject: [HPforGrownups] Drakoys treatment in GOB, was: Should Saw It? > Amanda wrote: > > >Several people have posted that Crouch/Moody's treatment of Malfoy in > >chapter 14 of GOF was extreme. Call me cruel, but, the first time I read > >that passage, I thought it was extremely humorous. > > Well, I would like to second this notion. I not only thought it was > humorous, but I thought the treatment was justice at its finest. True, > maybe he went a little overboard, but I think that Malfoy had it coming > for a long time. > > > Amanda also writes > > >unless J. K. Rowling specifically states that he is redeemable, or will be > >redeemed, I'll be perfectly content to look at him as a villain of some sort. > > > I don't think this is going to happen. Draco has been mean ever since we > have known him. True, people can change, but I just don't see it happening > in this case. Now, if by some stroke of miracle, Draco saves Harry > somehow, or he starts acting good for a change, I will be the first to > admit that I was wrong. > > Jarrod > > > 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 editor at texas.net Mon May 20 01:56:42 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 20:56:42 -0500 Subject: Of identities and truth Message-ID: <007a01c1ffa1$97e3f0c0$227d63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38904 I was driving around with no children in the car today, and the resulting unfamiliar resounding quiet jarred me so much I had an original thought. Here you go. Has anyone noticed that people associated with Voldemort seem to spend an awful lot of time faking identities? It's as if Voldemort's path leads you away from the truth of yourself. Whereas the Other Side seems to be about learning the truth of yourself and controlling it (*cough* Snape *cough*). Off the top of my head: SS/PS - Quirrell spends the whole year dissembling, playing a stuttering harmless fool. He does this 24/7. He fools damn near everyone. CoS - I'm working on it. Ginny being forced to act contrary to her nature and upbringing and conscience? Voldemort attempting to steal her life energies, thereby living falsely (i.e., where he should not be living at all, from appropriating another's energies, if not identity)? PoA - He's in the first two, of course, but comes into focus here--Pettigrew, who has spent twelve years pretending he's just a rat. I suppose it can be argued that one's animagus form *is* an outgrowth of the truth of oneself, and Pettigrew's form certainly does nothing to deny this, but taking the animagus form 100% of the time for 12 years is departing a bit from one's true self, isn't it? Point is, he's disguising himself and the truth of who he is, in order to hide his own evil. [Sirius, on the other hand, uses his animagus form straightforwardly as a disguise, periodically and only when necessary. It's not like he's living with a family and bringing them their paper.] GoF - Obviously, Crouch/Moody, who also spends 24/7 being something other than himself. It seems to be escalating, actually--from faking a personality change in the first book, to staying permanently in one's legitimate animagus form in the third, to stealing a totally unrelated person's identity in the fourth. Contrast this with Hagrid, who *was* hiding what he was (or at least neatly managing to ever mention it), and who confronted and accepted it. Also Snape--he doesn't idly chat with Harry a whole hell of a lot, but the implication is strong that he also does not advertise his past--but when push came to shove, he was right there owning up to it, and his was a position of strength. Or with Harry himself, who spent his first eleven years with a false identity foisted on him, and is growing into the truth of himself. Anybody else got anything? Does this make sense? Voldemort leads you away from yourself and from truth; the good guys help you learn the truth of yourself and accept/internalize it, and find the strength in it. --Amanda PrimaGeist From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon May 20 08:57:37 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 08:57:37 -0000 Subject: Cracking Frank (was Neville As Witness) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38905 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "finwitch" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > > > > Oh, please. Frank Longbottom was a trained Auror. I'm sure that > > he knew how to resist the Imperius Curse. It is a skill that can > be > > taught -- otherwise, why would Dumbledore have asked Crouch/Moody > to > > cover it in his DADA class? -- and while Crouch/Moody does concede > > that some people can never get the hang of it, other people can, > > given the proper training. > > > > I'd be willing to bet that you don't become an Auror unless you're > > one of those people who can. > > > > -- Elkins > > I agree with that completely. *Real* Moody most definately could - > even 14-year-old Harry did. I'm *sure* Frank Longbottom did, too. Ummm, guys - *Real* Moody was 10 months (or so) under Imperius. Serving as Polyjuice fodder, remember? I agree it's weird (Flint-ey even), but there it is. Aurors apparently are *not* immune to Imperius. Naama From abigailnus at yahoo.com Mon May 20 14:35:11 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:35:11 -0000 Subject: TBAY: The Night The Jabberknoll Screamed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38906 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > And the key to it all is the Jabberknoll. According to Fantastic > Beasts and Where To Find Them, p. 23. "Jobberknoll: "The Jobberknoll > (northern Europe and America) is a tiny blue, speckled bird which > eats small insects. It makes no sound until the moment of its death, > at which point it lets out a long scream made up of every sound it > has ever heard, regurgitated backwards. Jobberknoll > feathers are used in Truth Serums and Memory Potions." You know, I kind of hate to bring this up because it seems so, well, petty,= but this has really been troubling me. Are the HP Schoolbooks canon? I mean, obviously they are canon because they were written by The Creator, = so they must be true in the Potterverse. I'm just not sure they are fair g= ame for theorizing with. Canon is like building blocks - if you want to use th= e "Harry fired the gun" block on the third level of your tower there had better be a= "Harry has a gun" block somewhere below it, or the whole thing just comes crashing down. JKR is very good at laying out her blocks way ahead of time= - for example, Sirius Black, the concept of Animagi and Mrs. Figg are all int= roduced, however briefly, in PS. And, while JKR certainly has the right to assume t= hat someone reading the 4th book has read the three preceeding it, she doesn't = - important facts are reintroduced at the beginning of every book, and the th= ree examples I mentioned are each reiterated at the beginning of whatever book = they figure in. It *isn't* a fair assumption on JKR's part that all her readers have read t= he schoolbooks, as they are not part of the standard narrative, and given her penchant for laying out her foundation so early, it just seems out of character for her to introduce some Jabberknoll-based potion and have one o= f the characters say that they read about it in FB. I think the schoolbooks = should be in their own category of canon - JKR (and we) can't go against it, but b= asing a theory strictly on information in the schoolbooks should be a yellow flag= violation - at least wave the thing around for a while. But don't mind me. I don't like basing theories on JKR's interview answers= , because what if she changes her mind (or, as in the infamous Weasly cousin case, di= scovers a gaping plot hole and has to change the story?) > Now I take note of Elkins' recent suggestion that Aurors probably > are trained to resist the Imperius Curse and can't easily be > controlled by it. Ah, but they can! When Dumbledore finds Real > Moody in the trunk, he says, "Stunned ? controlled by the Imperius > Curse . . . " Yes, but he was Stunned *and* Imperius-ed! We know that stunning eventuall= y wears off (Snape shakes his off after receiving a triple and "over-enthusia= stic" dose in PoA) and that a strong-minded, properly trained person (both of whi= ch Moody obviously is) can shake off an Imperius - but both of them together? = Even Moody wouldn't be able to recover from that, and if he did, he would be loc= ked in a box (and a man who keeps a secret dungeon inside his trunk probably didn'= t make it easy to escape), cold, hurt, probably not too well-fed, and missing= both a leg and an eye. I think it's entirely possible that Moody shook off the Im= perius several times and couldn't do a thing about his situation. This leaves me with only the fact that we know Crouch Jr. got information o= ut of Moody by Imperius-ing him, and I really don't know how to answer that, e= xcept that perhaps one's physical fitness affects one's ability to shake of the I= mperius control, and if Moody was mistreated as I suggested, he might have found fi= ghting off the curse harder (now who's got a yellow flag waving?) > Before you know it, owls are arriving at MoM carrying panicked > messages about the Dark Mark over the Longbottom's house. The > citizens are coming unhinged at the sight of the Dark Mark again. > Moody, the best of the Aurors, is dispatched to investigate. But > guess who else shows up at the Longbottoms' house? > > Snape. > > Snape, the former DE, the nosy Hogwarts professor who spies for > Dumbledore. Severus "I'll do anything to be awarded The Order of > Merlin" Snape. The guy who given to trying to bring in the bad guys > himself, like he tried to do with Quirrel/Lupin/Black. It is common > knowledge by this point that Snape is a former DE who spied for > Dumbledore before Voldemort fell. Moody, as we learn in the > Pensieve scene, Doesn't Care For Our Dear Severus. Not at all. Yes, but Snape's reaction to Moody is just too bland for my taste. Shouldn= 't there be some residual "hey, we tormented a toddler together!" vibe between= them? I mean, this is the man who supposedly makes Neville's life miserabl= e because he (Snape) did something terrible to him (Neville) which he now fee= ls guilty about, but there's just no attitude coming off him towards Moody. Nothing apart from a general resentment for the fact that Moody still think= s he's a DE, the same Moody who, 14 years or so ago, trusted Snape enough to = involve him in an important criminal investigation, even though Snape is no= t only a lowly civilain, but a former DE. It just doesn't work for me. Abigail From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 20 16:00:42 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:00:42 -0000 Subject: Evil and Slytherin (Harry's Dream) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38907 Irene wrote: > > What about that dream Harry had the night after sorting? Where the voice from under Quirrel turban told him to transfer to Slytherin, if I remember right.<<< I don't think Voldemort can induce dreams in Harry. More likely it was the same sort of visitation that takes place twice in GoF. Harry ends up under Quirrel's turban because that's where Voldemort is, ie, inside Quirrel's head. I believe the little bit of Voldemort left in Harry was the source of the voice, awakened by proximity to Voldemort. The idea that Snape had a similar dream is interesting, but I can't believe Voldemort would do anything to let Snape suspect he was so close. He wouldn't trust any of his old servants--in his eyes they're all traitors who didn't look for him. > > > The question is, is 'ain't no such thing as a good Slytherin' > JKR's own opinion? Or are the readers being set up for a nice big bang? Where Harry has to acknowledge that he has his own nasty little prejudices - or that, like Draco, he has taken on his father's prejudices?<<<< > > > > I'm thinking of "Three musketeers" for some reason. Even > D'Artagnian recognised eventually that the other side is not evil per se, and if his first friends were not musketeers, he could as easily become a cardinal's guard. And Richelieu would make a splendid Head of Slytherin, no doubt about it. :-)<<<<< Dumas is much more cynical than Rowling--Richelieu would make a dandy Slytherin but unfortunately so would Buckingham or Anne of Austria. D'Artagnan's misfortune is to be a knight errant in a world where _noblesse_ no longer _oblige_. Unless Dumbledore is ever so evil, that's not the case in the Potterverse. Dumbledore believes in using his powers responsibly, at least according to McGonagall. Would Dumbledore trust Snape if Snape were still willing to use any means to achieve his ends? I don't think so. Pippin From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sun May 19 20:14:54 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Sun, 19 May 2002 20:14:54 -0000 Subject: Evil and Slytherin (Harry's Dream) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38908 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > > What about that dream Harry had the night after sorting? > Good point! (she says, in a drat-I'd-forgotten-that-bit tone of voice) I missed it completely in the book, and only noticed this bit when listening to Stephen Fry. So may that magic is so strong, that not only Harry is made to forget it. :-) > However... > He may have had a subconcious reason to connect Quirrel's *turban* > with the dark side (Quirrel himself isn't in the dream) - in the > scene at the Sorting Feast Harry's scar hurts him when the back of > Quirrel's turban is towards him. Consciously, Harry thinks it's > Snape, looking at him. Subconsciously??? That would be classical dream stuff then, revealing you something you should know, but missed. Very possible. > >may be Professor Snape also > > had a little magical dream that night? Something telling him to > > befriend the boy and make sure he asks to be transferred? Which, of > > course puts Snape's subsequent behaviour in interesting light. > > > > > I take it you mean that he promptly makes sure Harry dislikes him > intensely - interesting. It also implies that Voldemort still thinks > Snape is loyal. He should think so at this stage, no? I assumed he learned about Snape's betrayal listening to his "little chats" with Quirrel. Irene From brenna_britton at hotmail.com Mon May 20 06:59:01 2002 From: brenna_britton at hotmail.com (brenna_britton) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 06:59:01 -0000 Subject: Of identities and truth (and Boggarts) In-Reply-To: <007a01c1ffa1$97e3f0c0$227d63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38909 Amanda Geist wrote: > Has anyone noticed that people associated with Voldemort seem to spend an > awful lot of time faking identities? Examples: SS/PS - Quirrel COS - Ginny's forced actions POA - Pettigrew GOF - Crouch Jr. Amanda, you've got a very interesting point, and I just have one more character to add to your list: Tom Riddle. In COS, Voldemort assumes the identity of his younger self, which was his true identity at one point, but certainly isn't now. Moreove, Tom presents a false front designed to gain Ginny's trust and enable him to feed on her soul. No matter how naive Ginny may have been to use the diary, she never would have picked it up if she had known Tom's true identity. I think that the connection between Voldemort, his cohorts, and false identities is legitimate, because it reinforces the evils of deception and manipulation. It goes back to the basic battle between good and evil, and truth versus lies. Harry and Hagrid, through their individual journeys, develop integrity and an honest self-image. They have no need to hide behind a facade, like their enemies. This gives the good guys strength and purpose, and I have to wonder this: is it possible or likely that, by adopting numerous or prolonged false identies, a person could lose or forget a part of themselves and thereby be robbed of their purpose? Maybe that's akin to a Boggart's indecision when confronted by a group of people? In other words, someone can be wearing so many different facades that they lose track of what's real and what's not, and metaphorically (or literally) collapse under the guise. Sorry, that may be getting a bit existential, but it just reminds me of the masks that people wear every day and how we can easily lose touch with our true selves by adopting and then internalizing external values. Perhaps the Boogarts really are an example of this phenomena (it's my pet theory that they represent adolescent identity crises). That's my two cents, which kind of turned into at least twenty-five or thirty cents by accident ;) Brenna From sedate_fangirl at hotmail.com Mon May 20 15:51:45 2002 From: sedate_fangirl at hotmail.com (Sarah Tilson) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 11:51:45 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Evil Draco? Dead Draco? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38910 Quoth Aldrea: >Ooh, that would be a very interesting development. I also like to >think of how things would develop if Draco were to witness his >father's death at the hands of Voldemort. Since he seems to think >that his father is oh so powerful, and on the way to being even more >powerful, how would such a development shake him? And if his father >was killed, and his family sort of layed open to the things that >perhaps they had been shielded from so far(say, raids by the MoM?), >how would this affect Draco's actions? He'd loose alot of bragging >rights... Very interesting twist on the Redeemable!Draco theory...But while we're on the subject of Draco dying and bringing up other works of literature... I was re-reading the Aeneid in preparation for my AP Latin exam, and there was a particular subplot that made me think of the Malfoy clan: Mezentius, a king so thoroughly evil that his subjects can't wait to desecrate his body when he dies, has a son named Lausus who is possessed of a Noble Heart (tm). However, Lausus loves and worships his father despite his evil and obeys him without question. While battling with Our Hero Aeneas, Mezentius is wounded and Lausus defends him, dying in the process. Mezentius is grief-stricken at the death of his son, and this causes him to repent his evil actions and honor the memory of his son by acting nobly, dieing in battle, yadda yadda yadda. A lot of people assume as a matter of course that Draco can be redeemed from darkness. But what about Lucius? Perhaps this Dead!Draco thing might be the turning point that loses Voldemort his most powerful ally...either Draco makes a Noble Sacrifice and Lucius Realizes the Error of His Ways, or Voldemort kills Draco and Lucius realizes that not even association with the Dark Lord is proof against his evil... Just a silly theory from a loopy classics freak ^_^ Sarah "I have measured out my life in coffee spoons" -- T.S. Eliot, "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock" _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From lterrellgiii at icqmail.com Mon May 20 16:44:36 2002 From: lterrellgiii at icqmail.com (ltg3asu) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:44:36 -0000 Subject: Of identities and truth Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38911 "Amanda Geist" said: "Has anyone noticed that people associated with Voldemort seem to spend an awful lot of time faking identities?" Me: Well, no, I hadn't actually, but now that you mention it.... AG some more: "It's as if Voldemort's path leads you away from the truth of yourself. Whereas the Other Side seems to be about learning the truth of yourself and controlling it (*cough* Snape *cough*)" Me: Oooh! Lets do get Jungian on this one! This fits in perfectly with a Jungian interpretation of the books, I think. The hero's journey to Jung (if I remember correctly) was about discovering all aspects of one's self and incorporating them into a unified whole. I believe its not a stretch to assume (I don't have my copy of "Man and His Symbols" handy) that this is because all parts of the self serve their own positive (as well as negative) functions, and by suppressing a trait or module, its potential for a positive influence on our lives is inhibited. For example, Quirrell, who is very obviously a scared little man (to me). I would imagine that he has felt quite impotent his whole life through, unable to gain the happiness he wants, which ultimately must be gained from self via acceptance of who and what he is (whatever that may be). However, because it is easier to do so than to face his inner struggle, young Quirrell has turned to others (namely, Lord Voldemort) to find power and prestige, which he may believe are roots to happiness. He has turned his back on his inner journey of self discovery and acceptance for a quick and easy fix of instant self-esteem. Its interesting to note (if this sort of thing interests you) that the persona Quirrell adopts as a guise at Hogwarts is one that is a true reflection (in my POV) of his inner state (scared, powerless, and quivering). Continuing, how about Tom Riddle. I know young Riddle becomes the heinous LV, but I still can't help but feel sorry for him. He has suffered a great deal, much like our hero, Harry, but, fortunately, to different ends. Riddle has chosen to inflict his pain on the world (as a catharsis, maybe?) and to project onto muggles, mudbloods, and their allies the very guilt I believe he feels within himself for the loss of his parents (Did his mother not die in childbirth? Did his father not leave because of the magic in he and his mother?). He has managed to do this all very easily by creating a new self who does not have to deal with the hurt and fear, but only with the anger he feels. In essence, he has tossed to the side bits of himself that didn't suit him, and exaggerated parts that did and were acceptable. We all do this sort of thing (we create our shadows, or discarded traits, and personas, or the face we present to the world), but we don't all choose to carry it out to this extreme. As for Pettigrew, I liken him to Quirrell in his search for self esteem. It is continuously from others, at first the other Marauders, but then from LV. I do believe that, much like Neville, he does have latent strengths, but they are not so easy to get at, either because of the nature of the strengths or his view of himself and possible lack of self-worth (believing he can't do something inhibits him from doing it). The bottom line is that they aren't strengths to him, so he has mistakenly discarded them. Now, as for Harry, his journey of defining self has only just begun. He has had many an opportunity to cross over to the dark side (*see below), but has not done it. Why? He has had to face the anger, fear, and pain caused by the absence of his parents just as did Tom Riddle. He has also had to cope with the messages of lowered value (obviously, originating with the Dursleys) as did Peter. He has also had a "thirst to prove himself" and gain "power" like Quirrell. However, in Harry's case, he has had a guiding presence in his life, his own internalized moralistic sense of right and wrong. Even when faced with the person who betrayed his parents to their death, his anger doesn't overcome him, because he sees that killing Pettigrew wouldn't be right. When given the choice of becoming powerful by being in Slytherin, to Harry (who knows of the reputation that house has for turning out dark wizards), its really a choice of being bad (with power) or being good (possibly without power). Because of his morals, its not a hard choice ("Not Slytherin, not Slytherin!"). Harry has already begun to define himself by standards of good, but also to accept (although reluctantly, as seen in Chamber of Secrets) his potential to do bad and contain within himself negative characteristics. In the end, it is his choices that have begun to make Harry who he is, as the sculptor of himself and the rudder of his own ship (no, not SHIP!). L. Terrell Gould, III (who, it would seem, could not wait for school to end so he could spend his summer holidays writing five foot long parchments on Harry Potter) **** I saw Attack of the Clones, speaking of the "dark side", and could not stop comparing the story line of the whole saga to HP.... how sad**** From fleurmellor at yahoo.com Mon May 20 14:36:54 2002 From: fleurmellor at yahoo.com (fleurmellor) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:36:54 -0000 Subject: R.E hermione as mirror of Snape Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38912 Porhyria, Like the rules and logic argument you made for Hermione and Snape. Another similarity between them which involves logic would be that she reacted to his potion task that guarded the stone in PS/SS with great enthusiasm, the fact that he set this shows that he is generally quite logical I would think, but like you say, spite sometimes causes him to behave erratically. I think Hermione has much better personal control than him, apart from the slapping Malfoy incident! > > Porhyria wrote: > >I like your overall point here that in one > >case > > having your life > > saved leads to an improvement in friendship > > while in the other > > case > > it leads to a worsening of it. Still there > > are > > important > > differences > > in each case that make this a bit of an > >apples > > and oranges > > comparison. I kind of mean this whole idea to illustrate that Hermione has what Snape wanted in his school days to be 'in with the in crowd' eg the marauders. I'm sure plenty of people dont agree with this but I can't help thinking that from Snapes extreme reaction to Harry and apparently all the meddling he did in the maraders affairs that he would have liked to have been friends with them, and that his death-eater palls were second best. you have pointed out Hermiones meddling in Harry and Rons buisness as her seeking friendship, I think Snapes nosing into the Marauders buisness was similar. > >Porhyria wrote: > >I always interpreted this > > scene as an indication of how loyal Snape > >really > >is to > >Dumbledore.>snip< what > >he > >actually says is "Now, now, > >Malfoy...Professor > >Dumbledore has > >only > been suspended by the governors. I daresay > he'll > >be back with us > >soon > >enough." How on earth is that disloyal? > That's > >pretty supportive > > ok, ok youv'e got me on this one :-), I had forgot the dialoge after the smirk, I just feel that Snape isn't a loyal person, that he needs Dumbledores protection so will do whateveris necesary to obtain it. However I'm sure a case could be argued that he has hidden depths of great admiration for Dumbledore > Porhyria wrote: > >I > >imagine that Snape might have gotten over > some > >of his > >intolerance > >from his DE days (directed against > Muggle-borns, > >for example. I always thought that Snape would have been a DE for mainly reasons of getting Power and prestige and not been overly consumed with hatred for Muggles/muggleborns. I'm sure he probably didn't really care less about bad things happening to them but I cant imagine him hating someone just because of their parentage. There seems to be several things that hit the top on the 'Snape hate- o-meter' I would put fame seeking (real or percieved), stupidity, weakness, know-it-all-ness, people who have wronged him(again real or percieved) and people who have made him look a fool before pure blood issues as the things that really get his goat! Fleur *:)* From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 20 17:22:31 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 17:22:31 -0000 Subject: R.E hermione as mirror of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38913 Fleur wrote: >>>> Like the rules and logic argument [Porphyria] made for Hermione and Snape. Another similarity between them which involves logic would be that she reacted to his potion task that guarded the stone in PS/SS with great enthusiasm, the fact that he set this shows that he is generally quite logical I would think, but like you say, spite sometimes causes him to behave erratically. I think Hermione has much better personal control than him, apart from the slapping Malfoy incident!<<<<<< I am not so sure. Hermione has also: set a teacher on fire, stolen controlled substances, drugged two of her fellow students, and kidnapped a newspaper reporter. I don't think she'd ever be a Death Eater, but she could easily become one of those people whose fight against the dark side brings out the worst part of them. If she's planning to become an auror I really hope she becomes a bit less impetuous first. As matters stand, I don't think I'd trust her with the Imperius Curse. Pippin From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Mon May 20 19:18:26 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 19:18:26 -0000 Subject: R.E hermione as mirror of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38914 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Fleur wrote: > I think Hermione has much better personal control > than [Snape], apart from the slapping Malfoy incident!<<<<<< > > I am not so sure. Hermione has also: set a teacher on fire, > stolen controlled substances, drugged two of her fellow > students, and kidnapped a newspaper reporter. Not to mention casting Petrificus Totalus on Neville. But none of these actions were the result of her losing self-control, were they? In each case, Hermione was doing what she thought was necessary to achieve a specific goal. (Rather Slytherinish of her, really. I don't think Hermione would use *any* means to achieve her ends, but she's certainly willing to go pretty far if she feels her ends are just.) I think overall Hermione does have much better anger-management skills than Snape. She also is much more likely to get angry on behalf of other people than for herself. She slapped Draco because she was angry on Bugbeak's behalf. She determined to take down Rita because of what Rita did to Harry and Hagrid, even though Hermione was also a victim. Snape is much more likely to become enraged over injuries done (or perceived) to him than to other people. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Mon May 20 20:04:20 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 20:04:20 -0000 Subject: Of identities and truth In-Reply-To: <007a01c1ffa1$97e3f0c0$227d63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38915 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Has anyone noticed that people associated with Voldemort seem to spend an > awful lot of time faking identities? It's as if Voldemort's path leads you > away from the truth of yourself. Whereas the Other Side seems to be about > learning the truth of yourself and controlling it (*cough* Snape *cough*). > Very interesting points. I haven't thought of it that way before, but now I'm tempted to do yet another re-read of the books, searching for more examples of that theme. Here's something else I thought of that fits: the Death Eaters wear hooded cloaks and masks. Not only does this conceal their identities, it makes them pretty much indistinguishable from each other. They stop being individuals and become Voldemort's faceless tools. Marina rusalaka at ix.netcom.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 20 20:49:19 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 20:49:19 -0000 Subject: R.E hermione as mirror of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38916 > > Fleur wrote: > > I think Hermione has much better personal control > > than [Snape], apart from the slapping Malfoy incident!<<<<<< I wrote: > > I am not so sure. Hermione has also: set a teacher on fire, > > stolen controlled substances, drugged two of her fellow > > students, and kidnapped a newspaper reporter. Marina: > Not to mention casting Petrificus Totalus on Neville. > > But none of these actions were the result of her losing self-control,were they? In each case, Hermione was doing what she thought was necessary to achieve a specific goal. <> > I think overall Hermione does have much better anger-management skills than Snape<<<< I wasn't just thinking of acting in a fit of temper. I was thinking of letting anger take one to extremes. But if we are going to talk about emotional control generally, we will have to add in all the times Hermione has panicked or burst into tears, won't we? Pippin From asilaite at hotmail.com Mon May 20 21:10:46 2002 From: asilaite at hotmail.com (anavenc) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 21:10:46 -0000 Subject: An idle thought on shipping R/H Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38917 I often read that Rowling based Hermione's character on herself and Ron's--on her own best friend, what's-his-name. Now, I don't know how a writer's mind works (and it's a shame, after all those months of reading fanfiction I should :)), but with romance not being the central theme of the books and all that... wouldn't it be more economical for Rowling to take a perfectly good best friends relationship from real life, maybe with some romantic interest at some point, but definitely just best friends in the end... and just put it on paper instead of inventing something different for these two? I realize it's simplistic :) Ana. From pennylin at swbell.net Mon May 20 21:13:49 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 16:13:49 -0500 Subject: Hermione: Panic Attacks & Tears? (Was Hermione as mirror of Snape) References: Message-ID: <001f01c20043$3c4c2ff0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38918 Hi -- > > Fleur wrote: > > I think Hermione has much better personal control > > than [Snape], apart from the slapping Malfoy incident!<<<<<< Pippin wrote: > > I am not so sure. Hermione has also: set a teacher on fire, > > stolen controlled substances, drugged two of her fellow > > students, and kidnapped a newspaper reporter. Marina: > Not to mention casting Petrificus Totalus on Neville. > > But none of these actions were the result of her losing self-control,were they? In each case, Hermione was doing what she thought was necessary to achieve a specific goal. <> > I think overall Hermione does have much better anger-management skills than Snape<<<< Pippin again: <<<< >>>>>>> Sure, let's talk about those times, shall we? Panic attacks: 1. In SS during the Devil's snare episode ("Are you a witch or not?!") 2. While riding Buckbeak behind Harry (not so much *panic* as just general discomfort with flying on a hippogriff) Tears: 1. In the bathroom all day after Ron's cutting remarks about her, before she's friends with the boys (SS) 2. When she is awarded the 10 points for her cool use of logic under fire, she looks as though she *could* burst into tears (Harry suspects she has) (SS) 3. I could think of nothing in CoS off-hand 4. She cries when Ron makes it clear that she's not welcome to join in the post-game party (you know the *2nd* time that Harry makes overtures to try and make things up with Hermione .... that time) (POA) 5. Hagrid says she has cried a fair few times over her estrangement from Harry and Ron (POA) 6. She cries when she makes up with Ron at last (POA) 7. She cries when Harry & Ron make-up with each other (GOF) No evidence that Hermione dissolves into a pile of mush and cries at the drop of a hat, and there's especially no evidence that she bursts into tears (or otherwise succumbs to emotion) when the pressure is on. All the evidence points to is that she takes it very badly indeed when any of the Trio are at odds with each other. By all means though, if you have other evidence that Hermione panics on a regular basis or bursts into tears at the drop of a hat, please elaborate. :--) Me, I think Hermione qualifies as Tough. at Cindy. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Mon May 20 21:14:19 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 21:14:19 -0000 Subject: R.E hermione as mirror of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38919 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > > But none of these actions were the result of her losing > self-control,were they? In each case, Hermione was doing what > she thought was necessary to achieve a specific goal. > <> > > I think overall Hermione does have much better > anger-management skills than Snape<<<< > > I wasn't just thinking of acting in a fit of temper. I was thinking of > letting anger take one to extremes. But that's just it, Hermione doesn't let anger take her to extremes. When she set Snape on fire in PS/SS, or drugged Crabbe and Goyle in CoS, she didn't do it because she was angry at them, she did it because she thought it was the most efficient way to achieve what she wanted. Even when she went after Rita Skeeter, even though she was angry, her main purpose was to keep Rita from doing more damage. > But if we are going to talk > about emotional control generally, we will have to add in all the > times Hermione has panicked or burst into tears, won't we? Which is something Snape never does. We've seen him go positively rabid with rage, but we've never seen him give in to fear in a life-threatening situation, or get all weepy and sentimental. If I had to generalize about Snape and Hermione's emotional weaknesses, I'd say Hermione is most vulnerable to fear and sadness, while Snape is vulnerable to anger and guilt. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From rgwalker_27 at yahoo.com Mon May 20 21:41:29 2002 From: rgwalker_27 at yahoo.com (Robin Walker) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 14:41:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Of identities and truth In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020520214129.43614.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38920 Amanda Geist wrote: > Has anyone noticed that people associated with Voldemort seem to spend an awful lot of time faking identities? Examples: SS/PS - Quirrel COS - Ginny's forced actions POA - Pettigrew GOF - Crouch Jr. Like many others on the list, I am intrigued by this theory, and found myself wondering what it means that in COS the trio transform themselves, via Polyjuice Potion, to get into the Slytherin common room and ferret out the Heir of Slytherin. They assume others' identities, for however short a period. Admittedly, they do this to stop evil, and so their intentions are good. But, taking Amanda's point to heart, they did assume other identities. Now, I know that Amanda's question was limited to "people associated with Voldemort." But what about the people trying to stop Voldemort? Do they have to wander away from their true selves in order to match him -- to fight fire with fire? Writ large, does the pursuit of evil necessarily involve becoming evil (or at least, doing things that evil people might do)? Or, enlarging even that last question: is there good or evil in each of us, ready to be used when we want/need it? Thanks, Amanda, for a great post, Robin __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon May 20 21:53:19 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 21:53:19 -0000 Subject: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR: the Debate Rages On (WAS: Yellow Flags and Jobberkno In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38921 The crowd had thinned considerably after Cindy's outburst. Eloise still dozed in her own comfy MATCHINGARMCHAIR. Debbie sat bolt upright in her non-descript meeting room chair, wiping the inky black liquid from her writing tablet. Jtdogberry, a newcomer, gathered his things, muttering that someone was going to get hurt if this kept up. There, Cindy thought. That Jobberknoll variant ought to satisfy Elkins once and for all. And all it cost was a perfectly good sleeve of crackers and some warm processed cheese. Not bad for a day's work. Cindy strode back to the refreshments table, this time selecting a package of Zwieback and a juice box because, after all, Harry Potter is just a children's book series. Elkins sheepishly retrieved her Yellow Flag and used it to mop the sweat from her upper lip. Cindy eased herself down into her MATCHINGARMCHAIR. This time, she did not put her refreshments on her Big paddle. She wanted to be ready for anything. ****************** Elkins mumbled into the microphone, something about having a confession to make: >After all, Elkins had once (as she now recalled with some > degree of embarrassment) ascribed to the Reverse Memory Charm >theory herself. > > But that had been a long time ago. Back in the halcyon days. >Back before she and Cindy had been forced to sever their >engagement. Back before Cindy had grown bitter and started >carrying around that great big *paddle.* Cindy nodded knowingly, drifting off into deep thought . . . . Yes, those were the days. Elkins once embraced the Reverse Memory Charm enthusiastically ? with extra exclamation points and everything. Cindy could quote from those messages, but that would be unspeakably churlish. Cindy had not forgotten these things. But people grow. People change. And sometimes . . . sometimes . . . people grow apart. Oh, sometimes they stray far, far away from canon in their attempt to find the Right memory charm theory. Sometimes they even sponsor entire *Symposiums*. But they always return to their MATCHINGARMCHAIR . . . when the time is right . . . Elkins is speaking again. Something about dementors and eggs: >But you've still got the Egg and the Dementor to deal with. The > Jobberknoll doesn't fix those. If you really want to convert me >to your Reverse Memory Charm cause, then you're going to have to >find some way around the Egg and the Dementor. Otherwise, I just >can't go for it. Ah, the Egg and the Dementor. Is that all? Well, why didn't you *say* so! Let's tackle the Egg first. What's the problem there? Elkins: >Because even if you turn the volume knob all the way down >to "intermittent cries of agony," and the frequency dial all the >way to "only when Snape picks on Neville in Potions class," you're >still left with the problem that Neville ought to *know* what >people in pain sound like, and that they really don't >sound the slightest bit like a ghost orchestra playing on the >musical saw -- which is what the mermaid song from Harry's Egg >sounds like. So the Egg Problem still stands. Well, I have some personal experience in this area. Over the years, I have tortured *many* people within an inch of their lives, and if you go at it *just* right, if you *really* know what you're doing, once they stop saying actual *words* and stop with all the *begging*, they do in fact make this freakish high-pitched squeal that sounds exactly . . . People, people, people. The Egg is Not A Problem for MATCHINGARMCHAIR. The Egg's wail is described as "the most horrible noise, a loud and screechy wailing" like the ghost orchestra at Nearly Headless Nick's deathday party playing musical saws. When Harry opens the Egg in the bathtub, the wailing, screeching sound is described as "incomprehensible." When Harry drops it on the stairs, it again is said to sound like "wailing." And what does the cry of the tiny Jobberknoll sound like: "A long scream made up of every sound it ever heard, regurgitated backward." Gee, that might sound a lot like a horrible noise, a loud and screechy wailing that would be *incomprehensible*. The Egg's screeching sounds to Neville just like the death scream of the Jobberknoll. No wonder poor Neville likens it to the sound of someone being tortured! The Jobberknoll death rattle is what Neville is reacting to in that scene in GoF, not the actual cries of his parents, which would be *plenty* comprehensible. Elkins interrupts, which under the circumstances shows uncharacteristic bravery: >It also doesn't fix the Dementor problem. If Neville had a Reverse > Memory Charm, then the Dementor on the train at the beginning of >PoA really should have been able to dredge that memory up for him. >He would have been reliving the experience of having witnessed his > parents being tortured. And if he really had been reliving that > experience, then I just can't imagine that he wouldn't have > been in far worse shape than Ginny. Or Harry, for that matter. >But he wasn't. He was doing better than either of them. Harry >passes out. Ginny looks "as bad as Harry feels." But Neville's >just pale and shaken. So that's a problem too. Ah, that's not a problem either, because that is exactly as it should be. I challenge the premise that Neville should have a more severe reaction than Harry. Neville watched his parents tortured, not killed. He still goes to see them. And nothing in canon suggests that Neville's life was ever in danger that night. Harry, on the other hand, was practically blasted out of his screaming mother's arms by the Most Evil Dark Wizard who ever lived. As the house collapsed around Harry's head, Voldemort tried to kill Harry, too. Voldemort was then vaporized on the spot, while Harry received a great gash on his forehead and the ability to speak the Dark Language Parseltongue. If you add in that awful link that Harry seems to have with Voldemort, it is no wonder that Harry fares so poorly against dementors. As for Ginny, she suffered at the hands of Tom Riddle, who is . . . Voldemort. She came within minutes of dying as the life was slowly drained from her. In contrast, Neville watched others suffer at the hands of wizards far less powerful than Riddle or Voldemort. Ginny's reaction should be somewhere between Harry and Neville. And it is. Harry and Ginny react more than Neville to the dementor on the train because they both survived near-death experiences at the hands of Voldemort, whereas Neville merely witnessed an atrocity. Nah. The Dementor on the train is no trouble. No trouble at all. So . . . will you convert, Elkins? A deal's a deal, right? ;-) *************** Cindy reclines back into her MATCHINGARMCHAIR, awaiting Elkins' conversion that Cindy *knows* must be coming. The Egg objection? Defeated. The Dementor objection? Defeated. The Yellow Flag violation? Defeated. Surely that should be the *end*, after all of these months of terrible Memory Charm conflict. But what on Earth is this?!? *************** Elkins: > And just calling Reverse Memory Bangy and FEATHERBOASish isn't >going to convince me. It is indeed true that the Reverse Memory >Charm is appealingly cruel and horrid. But it's hardly the *only* >appealingly cruel and horrid Memory Charm theory floating around in >the Bay, you know. Many far more stable Memory Charm theories give >every bit as much Bang for the buck -- and a number of them are >every last bit as ghastly as the MATCHING ARMCHAIR. Can't I >interest you in a Ministry Cover-up instead? One with an option on >Ever So Evil Moody, perhaps? That one's pretty Bangy. Or how >about Debbie's Memory Charm Most Foul flavored DEPRECIATION >variant? That one has Bang *and* cruelty! Won't you at least try >it on for size? Ah, misdirection. Elkins underestimates Cindy. *No way* is Cindy going for any of those alternative Memory Charm theories because, aside from the *plethora* of yellow flag violations in some of them, they are all sizzle and no Bang. No Bang at all. Lots of allegations of corruption and collusion and such, that's true, but no more so than in MATCHINGARMCHAIR. In the final analysis, though, we're talking about that same old Traditional Memory Charm that 90% of readers worked out on their own. Nothing can change the fact that, no matter how much you dress up those Traditional Memory Charm theories, there's no potential Bangy plot twist with Memory Charm Neville because we've all been ready for it since the end of GoF. Elkins: > The Reverse Memory Charm actually isn't even all that Bangy to >begin with, now, is it? >I mean, the idea that Neville might be hearing his > parents screaming in torment all the time is indeed cruel, and it > does indeed please my featherboas, but it isn't really in the > *slightest* bit Bangy. It doesn't offer any opportunities for a > Great Character-changing Catalyst, or for a Shocking Revelation, >or for a Mind-Blowing Plot Twist, or for an Oscar-worthy Cinematic > Moment, or *any* of that. > > > In *fact,* I don't think that Reverse Memory Charm belongs on the >Big Bang Destroyer at *all*. I say that it's a *Dud,* and should >be stowed away in the hold until it can prove its merit! Cindy stops gnawing her Zwieback, wiping the sodden cracker from her lips. A vein throbs in her temple. Her eyes narrow. What is the meaning of this? Did I hear *correctly*? Is this an ill-conceived *mutiny* on the Big Bang Destroyer? A blatant attempt to throw the Captain into the brig, MATCHINGARMCHAIR and all? It has come to this, has it? This challenge -- from the Captain of the Fourth Man Hovercraft of all things! The Hovercraft that is in such bad condition, such disrepair, that it is *coated* in foul seagull droppings. The Hovercraft that has been left to drift, rudderless, as Judy, Debbie and even Eileen's *brother* attempt to capsize it just for the sport of it? And now . . . Elkins, the Captain of the pitiful, neglected Hovercraft, dares declare which theories belong on the Big Bang Destroyer?!? Oh, this is far worse than spraypainted graffiti, far worse than the odd seashell tossing, far worse than murdering Pig, Erroll and Hedwig. . . . This time, Elkins has gone *Too Far*! Let me tell you something! I have been Banging since before you were *born*! I am the *Queen* of Banging! Reverse Memory Charm Neville is Bangy if I *say* he is! And I can prove it! What's the future Bang with every one of the Memory Charm Neville variants? Hmmmm? That the Charm will be removed? And? So? What? Neville cries his little eyes out when he finally remembers what happened? He gets a little *snippy* with Gran? He sleeps past noon for a few days? That's it? That's all you've got? Well, I'll have you know that with Reverse Memory Charm Neville, we get *multiple* Bangs. We get a huge scene where Harry finally asks Neville about what happened the night the Longbottoms were tortured and Neville tells the whole gruesome tale in excruciating detail. (All of the Memory Charm Neville theories, in contrast, have a scene where Harry asks Neville about this and Neville gives him a *blank stare* because he *doesn't remember anything*.) We then get a huge confrontation where Neville finally confronts his biggest fear ? Snape! He demands to know why Snape fed him the Jobberknoll Memory Potion. Neville. Stands. Up. To. Snape! You can have weeping, you can have cursing, you can have dueling, you even can have hand-to-hand combat. The Bang can go on for dramatic page after dramatic page! MATCHINGARMCHAIR with optional Jobberknoll variant has it all: intrigue, unpredictability and rock solid canon foundation. JKR would approve, Elkins, you know she would. And it's really, really comfy, too. Go on, try it one more time. And put your feet up. I'm *sure* there's a GIANTCUSHION around here somewhere. ;-) *********** Cindy For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% 20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon May 20 22:23:11 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 22:23:11 -0000 Subject: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? (WAS The Night The Jobberknoll Screamed) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38922 Abigail wrote: > Are the HP Schoolbooks canon? Hmmm. I was always pretty sure that they are canon. There is no question that they were written by JKR, after all, which is the definition of canon. I'm not the final authority, though. We'll have to get a ruling from Lexicon Steve. Steve? I wonder about one thing, though. Has anyone ever found any way in which the schoolbooks are consistent with the first four books? Abigail: >I'm just not sure they are fair game > for theorizing with. Canon is like building blocks - if you want >to use the "Harry fired the gun" block on the third level of your >tower there had better be a > "Harry has a gun" block somewhere below it, or the whole thing >just comes crashing down. JKR is very good at laying out her >blocks way ahead of time Yes, that's true. JKR is good at foreshadowing -- when she wants to. The most important potion in the series is undoubtedly Voldemort's rebirthing potion, however, which wasn't foreshadowed at all, IIRC. Moody's trunk made its first appearance at the end of GoF, I think. The Time Turner came right out of nowhere. So if JKR wanted Jobberknolls (or anything else in Fantastic Beasts) to be significant, she could easily use the schoolbooks as the foundation. Similarly, if a concept from the schoolbooks would make sense as a solution to a problem in a future book, I would expect JKR to account for it. If she didn't, I would consider it a mistake or a FLINT. Abigail: > It *isn't* a fair assumption on JKR's part that all her readers >have read the schoolbooks, as they are not part of the standard >narrative, and given her penchant for laying out her foundation so >early, it just seems out of character for her to introduce some >Jabberknoll-based potion and have one of > the characters say that they read about it in FB. Well, she wouldn't have to do it in quite that way. Hagrid could just show up with a Jobberknoll that fits the description in FB. Unless it is to be a major plot twist, there's no reason JKR wouldn't just repeat the description of Jobbernoll for the benefit of the readers who are new to the books -- just the way she slipped in a mention of Animagi in GoF. Abigail: >I think the schoolbooks should > be in their own category of canon - JKR (and we) can't go against >it, but basing a theory strictly on information in the schoolbooks >should be a yellow flag violation - at least wave the thing around >for a while. Ouch! This is a tough crowd, isn't it? ;-) Abigail: >I don't like basing theories on JKR's interview answers, because > what if she changes her mind (or, as in the infamous Weasly cousin >case, discovers a gaping plot hole and has to change the story?) Yes, I usually don't consider JKR's interview answers to be as reliable as the books or schoolbooks, because she is much more likely to make an error when speaking extemporaneously. (Didn't she say inconsistent things about James' Quiddich position?) But I'm holding her to the same high standard with the schoolbooks as I am with the first 4 books -- inconsistencies among them are FLINTs in my eyes. Abigail (about Moody): > Yes, but he was Stunned *and* Imperius-ed! We know that stunning >eventually wears off (Snape shakes his off after receiving a triple >and "over-enthusiastic" dose in PoA) and that a strong-minded, >properly trained person (both of which Moody obviously is) can >shake off an Imperius - but both of them together? I don't think Snape was Stunned in PoA. I think he got a triple blast of Expelliarmus and was knocked out. I believe the only way to wake up from being Stunned is with Ennervate. That is why Harry and Cedric weren't worried the Big Spider would wake up while they argued about who should take the Cup. Compare this to how Harry was worried that the Skrewt (which received a blast of Impedimenta) would revive on its own and come after him. As for whether Moody can shake off the Imperius Curse, well . . . we have three examples of wizards shaking off Imperius: Harry, Crouch Sr., and Crouch Jr. Harry took one hour to learn this. Crouch Sr. took around 8 months. Crouch Jr. took many years. So it is reasonable to think that Moody wasn't going to be able to shake off Imperius very quickly either. Abigail: >I think it's entirely possible that Moody shook off the Imperius > several times and couldn't do a thing about his situation. I'm not so sure about this. The purpose of using Imperius on Moody was to interview him and extract information from him. I had the impression he was left Stunned most of the time, and he was awakened and placed under Imperius when Crouch Jr. had a question. So I don't think there's any logical reason to believe Moody ever shook off the Imperius Curse while imprisoned in his trunk. But that's just a guess. Cindy From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon May 20 20:42:41 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 20:42:41 -0000 Subject: TBAY: The Night The Jabberknoll Screamed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38923 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigailnus" wrote: Abigail: > Yes, but he was Stunned *and* Imperiused! We know that stunning eventually > wears off (Snape shakes his off after receiving a triple and "over- enthusiastic" > dose in PoA) and that a strong-minded, properly trained person (both of which > Moody obviously is) can shake off an Imperius - but both of them together? Even > Moody wouldn't be able to recover from that, and if he did, he would be locked in > a box (and a man who keeps a secret dungeon inside his trunk probably didn't > make it easy to escape), cold, hurt, probably not too well-fed, and missing > both a > leg and an eye. I think it's entirely possible that Moody shook off the Imperius > several times and couldn't do a thing about his situation. Yes - *very* hard. Stunned *and* Imperioused inside a locked trunk, kept in there for a long time - long enough perhaps to resist stunning, but not yet Imperious. Moody would also be very thirsty (Guess that trunk was also dusty) - so he has *little* resistance when Crouch gave him something to drink. Moody *was* in near malnutrition, wasn't he? Crouch remembered to Imperious him to eat every time he fed him - only enough for him to live... It'd be extremely hard to resist something that goes along with your needs! Particulalarly if that need is so strong that you die if it's not fulfilled. > This leaves me with only the fact that we know Crouch Jr. got information out > of Moody by Imperiusing him, and I really don't know how to answer that, except > that perhaps one's physical fitness affects one's ability to shake of the Imperius > control, and if Moody was mistreated as I suggested, he might have found fighting > off the curse harder (now who's got a yellow flag waving?) Of course it is. First he's near dying of thirst and lack of food - Crouch Imperiouses him and *commands* him to eat and drink. If you resist Imperious it's best to start as soon as possible- giving in makes resistance hard if not impossible. Abigail: >I mean, this is the man who supposedly makes Neville's life miserable > because he (Snape) did something terrible to him (Neville) which he now feels > guilty about, but there's just no attitude coming off him towards Moody. > Nothing apart from a general resentment for the fact that Moody still thinks > he's a DE, the same Moody who, 14 years or so ago, trusted Snape enough to > involve him in an important criminal investigation, even though Snape is not only > a lowly civilain, but a former DE. It just doesn't work for me. Well... 1) If there *was* a Jobberknoll and Snape killed it so they could find out what happened -- what if that Jobberknoll was Neville's pet? Just imagine how Neville would react if someone killed Trevor? 2) *Snape* made the Memory Potion. (Possibly right there - there's always Accio if he didn't bring something) Snape. He also keeps seeing Snape making *potions*. It's a reminder of the Night. 3) Snape fed it to Neville... Neville is *not* going to drink any potions from Snape. So a Cauldron will melt or potion boil over. 4) Moody was there as some sort of supervisor and Snape wasn't given *total* freedom but that he had to be watched over. (By Dumbledore or an auror). Or Snape arrived first - Moody came in with Crouch only to see Snape with a dead and live Jobberknoll and little Neville there, crying, sucking tumb. Snape kills other Jobberknoll to get all clear (hard to make out if people speak backwords) Snape doesn't see Neville, but Neville sees him... -- Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon May 20 22:09:27 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 22:09:27 -0000 Subject: emotional control; Neville In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38924 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > I wasn't just thinking of acting in a fit of temper. I was thinking of > letting anger take one to extremes. But if we are going to talk > about emotional control generally, we will have to add in all the > times Hermione has panicked or burst into tears, won't we? > > Pippin Ah... Snape isn't always in control his emotions either. It still stayed as a fearfool look and grasping his arm when Crouch-as-Moody saw his mark. He *also* acts on impulse and in anger (mostly yelling, though), but going out in an attempt to *kill* Lupin? Accuse Sirius of *murder* and bring him to Dementor's Kiss or Death? PoA was *very* impulsive Snape. He doesn't fear to express his anger, does he? Or his suspicions? Remus Lupin *does* almost control his emotions - except during full moon, but that's not his fault. And Harry - he *does* keep his emotions mostly to himself - sometimes resulting in a leak of magic (particularly witheld fear/anger). However- Depression&Fear - Boggarts/Dementors: He's in control - he does his Patronus/riddiculus with *ease* in GoF. He even sees that his *supposed* Dementor is *acting oddly* and conciously concludes it's a boggart. Clearly in control of fear and anger. Dumbledore -- kind, benevolent -- but when he's *angry* you know it. It's scary. Yet -- he just bursts a door and *stuns* Crouch Jr. Then it's *gone*. Oh this is *control* in emotion and magic. The master. Then again, he *is* the Supreme Mugwump... Neville- Emotional control? Oh yes - leading to leaking magic all the time. When faced with the *worst* he turns pale, is in shock - but recovers quickly. *Does* he really lack control in magic? Maybe he just *wants* to do it on himself to find out how it feels before doing it on someone or something else? Find out consequences first? Being very careful? He strongly disapproves on potions (Memory Potion- theory) - so he protests by melting his cauldron... I think Neville's very *ethical* person. Seeing someone/something get hurt deeply offends his conscience... Broomstick-incident: He doesn't like the fact that someone killed a tree to make that broomstick. He doesn't like wands for the same reason. (And you can't get Dragon Heart-strings without killing the Dragon, can you? - and Unicorns don't *like* someone snapping their tail-hair -- I'm not sure what Phoenixes feel) Stopping Harry&Co. : Yes - now here he's making a compromise: He wants to prevent his friends from getting *killed* or *hurt* and breaking rules and bring Gryffindor very low in points. Besides-- Neville's control on magic *is* getting better. He's doing the thing he's supposed to - but aims preferably himself (as he did in McGonagall's class) - or the teacher who's telling them to do it in the first place. (to give a lesson to the teacher!) I think Neville is stepping onto that trap-step on *purpose* - to say it shouldn't be there. He doesn't see anything wrong with Herbology - but the things they use in potions-- powdering living beetles? For what? A potion which effects could be done otherwise with *less* harm with a wand. Of *course* his magic melts the Cauldron (so that he, at least, won't be *doing* the potion). He's learning all right... No detention made him paler than one where he had to *hurt frogs*. We never hear any details -- wonder how many *accidents* happened... Neville is the one who chooses to nobly suffer -- Harry chooses to raise arms against the trouble. Just that Neville isn't confident about his choice because it isn't *Working*. All that suffering and nothing happens - of course he joins SPEW with Hermione! Neville is the *good*, the *saintlike* person in the series. He fears Snape -- because Snape can make him do bad things - and Gran does, too... Neville may also have known for a long time that Snape was a DE... Heard from his parents and with Memory Potion, he remembers? He fears people who *hurt*, but more, he fears that he's *hurting someone else*. -- Finwitch From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon May 20 22:09:32 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 22:09:32 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore - brilliant but scary? was Re: Evil and Slytherin (Harry's Dream) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38925 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Unless > Dumbledore is ever so evil, that's not the case in the Potterverse. > Dumbledore believes in using his powers responsibly, at least > according to McGonagall. I don't think he is ever so evil, but he scares me sometimes. One example being his "little chat" with Nicholas Flamel, the thought of which always makes me shudder. Anyone else imagines it being to the tune of "For the sake of the wizarding population, this wizard must die", or is it just me? Irene From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon May 20 22:15:59 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 22:15:59 -0000 Subject: R.E hermione as mirror of Snape In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38926 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > > I think overall Hermione does have much better anger-management skills > than Snape. She also is much more likely to get angry on behalf of > other people than for herself. She slapped Draco because she was > angry on Bugbeak's behalf. She determined to take down Rita because > of what Rita did to Harry and Hagrid, even though Hermione was also a > victim. Snape is much more likely to become enraged over injuries > done (or perceived) to him than to other people. Maybe my definition of "enraged" is weak, but I would count only the ending of PoA as an evidence of Snape losing control. And the irritant was enormous, far bigger than anything Hermione had faced so far. Irene From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 20 22:59:51 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 22:59:51 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore - brilliant but scary? was Re: Evil and Slytherin (Harry's Dream) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38927 I wrote: > > > Unless Dumbledore is ever so evil, that's not the case in the Potterverse. Dumbledore believes in using his powers responsibly, at least according to McGonagall.<<< Irene: > I don't think he is ever so evil, but he scares me sometimes. One example being his "little chat" with Nicholas Flamel, the thought of which always makes me shudder. Anyone else imagines it being to the tune of "For the sake of the wizarding population, this wizard must die", or is it just me? > Oh! Maybe like Sam's description of the Lady of Lorien in LOTR: "I don't know about *perilous* ," said Sam. "It strikes me that folk takes their peril with them into Lorien, and finds it there because they've brought it. But perhaps you could call her perilous, because she's so strong in herself. You, you could dash yourself to pieces on her like a ship on a rock, or drownd yourself , like a Hobbit in a river. But neither rock nor river would be to blame." I like thinking of Dumbledore that way. Come to think of it, maybe what Sam says could apply to Slytherin House as well. Maybe folk bring their evil with them into Slytherin, and find it there because they've brought it. What they do about it once they've found it---ah, that's the question, isn't it? Pippin From Zarleycat at aol.com Mon May 20 23:45:01 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 23:45:01 -0000 Subject: Of identities and truth In-Reply-To: <20020520214129.43614.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38928 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Robin Walker wrote: > > > Now, I know that Amanda's question was limited to > "people associated with Voldemort." But what about > the people trying to stop Voldemort? Do they have to > wander away from their true selves in order to match > him -- to fight fire with fire? Writ large, does the > pursuit of evil necessarily involve becoming evil (or > at least, doing things that evil people might do)? > Or, enlarging even that last question: is there good > or evil in each of us, ready to be used when we > want/need it? > I think we need more background on the first Voldemort war to see if any of our heros/heroines used evil against evil. However, we do have Sirius' chat with the Trio in GoF where he talks about Crouch becoming as cruel and ruthless as the DEs, including authorizing Aurors to use the Unforgivable Curses. If Sirius' interpretation of the public mood at the times is correct, these developments were approved of by many people. On the other hand, Sirius also tells us that Moody always tried to bring suspects in alive. So, yes, it seems that Moody, at least, recognized that the forces of good were, at least some of the time, acting in ways that could be contrued as evil. And he himself made the conscious decision that he would not rely on these methods exclusively, but only use them as a last resort. Marianne From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue May 21 00:24:13 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 17:24:13 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Dumbledore - brilliant but scary? was Re: Evil and Slytherin (Harry's Dream) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1426091044.20020520172413@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38929 Monday, May 20, 2002, 3:09:32 PM, irene_mikhlin wrote: i> I don't think he is ever so evil, but he scares me sometimes. One i> example being his "little chat" with Nicholas Flamel, the thought of i> which always makes me shudder. Anyone else imagines it being to the i> tune of "For the sake of the wizarding population, this wizard must i> die", or is it just me? Yes, I must admit I do have an image of D. holding his wand to Flamel's throat... (There *has* to ve a reason Voldy fears him!) -- Dave From divaclv at aol.com Mon May 20 23:05:50 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 23:05:50 -0000 Subject: Of identities and truth In-Reply-To: <20020520214129.43614.qmail@web10806.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38930 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Robin Walker wrote: > > Amanda Geist wrote: > > Like many others on the list, I am intrigued by this > theory, and found myself wondering what it means that > in COS the trio transform themselves, via Polyjuice > Potion, to get into the Slytherin common room and > ferret out the Heir of Slytherin. They assume others' > identities, for however short a period. Admittedly, > they do this to stop evil, and so their intentions are > good. But, taking Amanda's point to heart, they did > assume other identities. And then you have Sirius, who spends most of PoA and large chunks of GoF in canine form. This isn't wholly an affectation of the villians. > Now, I know that Amanda's question was limited to > "people associated with Voldemort." But what about > the people trying to stop Voldemort? Do they have to > wander away from their true selves in order to match > him -- to fight fire with fire? Writ large, does the > pursuit of evil necessarily involve becoming evil (or > at least, doing things that evil people might do)? > Or, enlarging even that last question: is there good > or evil in each of us, ready to be used when we > want/need it? > I think it all comes back to the overall theme that "sin doth lie in the intent." It's not so much the actions themselves, but their motivation and their effect that make the difference. PS--I'm new here, so please forgive any faux pas or toe-treading I may exhibit in the next few days/posts. Look forward to chatting with you all! ~Christi From finwitch at yahoo.com Mon May 20 23:17:57 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 23:17:57 -0000 Subject: Of identities and truth; The Trick In-Reply-To: <007a01c1ffa1$97e3f0c0$227d63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38931 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Anybody else got anything? Does this make sense? Voldemort leads you away > from yourself and from truth; the good guys help you learn the truth of > yourself and accept/internalize it, and find the strength in it. > > --Amanda PrimaGeist James Potter, Sirius Black and at this point, Peter Pettigrew, *did* help Remus Lupin to accept his werewolfishness - Severus Snape was preventing it. That's what might put the 'trick' in perspective. I'm sure Sirius believed the Slytherin 'nosy git' knew about the willow, believed beyond question. He didn't know did he know about Remus, though - so he asked a trick-question to find out without giving up anything - leading to the famous near-death experience for Snape. - Snape *still* has the problem about Lupin (who fortunately is already in terms with it). - Why does Snape choose to call it *murder*? It's not like Sirius *forced* him to go? He definately has a problem about himself that's unsolved (which is also why he's so *nasty* - he's not all goody yet, but working on it - Dumbledore is *guiding* him; making up with Sirius is the last thing he needs to be totally one with himself). Sirius... Of course he's in terms with his past - otherwise he'd become as insane as the rest in Azcaban. He's right - Knowledge of his innocence is what *saved* him. Being able to hide from Dementors as a dog may have *helped*, but his innocence is what truly saved him. However... Fudge wants to hide truth of Voldemort - but I think he's in terms with the worst moments of his life - as well as Voldemort - or they wouldn't like being around Dementors so much. They are a bit *too* in terms with those - they're what give them the strength... Oh - and another come in terms or not pair - Dobby and Winky - Dobby's obviously coming to terms - Winky is not, but Winky is merely pitiful, not evil... then again, Winky's not trying to *deny* she's been freed. But she can't as yet accept it. -- Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue May 21 00:08:06 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 00:08:06 -0000 Subject: Neville's tortured Parents... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38932 A real bangy idea just came to me-- what if *Neville*, toddler Neville had a temper tantrum -- and *that* is what caused his parents torture? The *first* time he ever did any magic, not understanding it at all. Then, he simply forgot it... but he *is* feeling guilty, because somewhere deep inside he remembers - remembers when ever something is hurt- He's afraid to do magic because someone might get hurt; So afraid that only instinct of survival could bring it out of him. He seems to be close in coming to terms with Crouch's spider. Did Moody know? Did Crouch Jr. know? Neville can't learn effective magic until he gets in terms with the torturer!Neville -- Finwitch From meboriqua at aol.com Tue May 21 01:08:01 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 01:08:01 -0000 Subject: Of identities and truth In-Reply-To: <007a01c1ffa1$97e3f0c0$227d63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38933 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amanda Geist" wrote: > Has anyone noticed that people associated with Voldemort seem to spend an awful lot of time faking identities? It's as if Voldemort's path leads you away from the truth of yourself. Whereas the Other Side seems to be about learning the truth of yourself and controlling it (*cough* Snape *cough*).> I love this, my fellow geist! As soon as I read your post two other characters came to mind, but we don't know if they are associated with Voldemort. I think most of us, at the very least, though, would agree that neither of these characters are definitely on the side of Good. Rita Skeeter - she knows she is not allowed on the grounds of Hogwarts, so she relies on her *illegal* animagus identity to get the information (albeit exaggerated and not always true) she wants. Her motives may not be pure evil, but they sure are selfish. Professor Trelawney - I wouldn't say that she fakes her identities, but she is the biggest phony around. She puts on a big show for her students to gain their admiration and to intimidate them. When she really does See, she denies it, not acknowledging at least a part of her identity, preferring to stay with the persona she has so carefully developed. Once again, I don't think she is evil or one of Voldemort's hench - uh - women, but she is by no means nice, honest or interested in learning the truth of herself. Deception is definitely a theme in HP; and JKR so far seems to saying that those who try to deceive don't get away with it. I'm curious to see, in keeping with Amanda's speculations, if Harry and Co. will need to be the deceivers at some point and how that will work out for them. --jenny from ravenclaw ********************** From sailor_moirae at hotmail.com Tue May 21 01:07:11 2002 From: sailor_moirae at hotmail.com (sailor_moirae) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 01:07:11 -0000 Subject: Evil!Percy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38934 JKR has hinted that a Weasley will join with Voldemort. I think that it'll be Percy because he strives for authority in any situation. He was also looking at a book called, "Prefects Who Gained Power". He is the unlikeliest to go evil also. Moirae From blpurdom at yahoo.com Tue May 21 01:11:05 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 01:11:05 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Harry, Hermione, Ron and JKR's Split personality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38935 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "anavenc" wrote: > I often read that Rowling based Hermione's character on herself > and Ron's--on her own best friend, what's-his-name. Now, I don't > know how a writer's mind works (and it's a shame, after all those > months of reading fanfiction I should :)), but with romance not > being the central theme of the books and all that... wouldn't it > be more economical for Rowling to take a perfectly good best > friends relationship from real life, maybe with some romantic > interest at some point, but definitely just best friends in the > end... and just put it on paper instead of inventing something > different for these two? You make a good point, but OTOH, I think that Harry is even more based on JKR than Hermione. As Hermione is the lead female character, she has chosen to give her some of her qualities (I think this is where Hermione's bleeding-heart comes in). However, lest we forget, she's also given Harry the same birthday she has (July 31) and she's writing from his point of view. So if she's writing Harry as the masculine side of herself and Hermione as the feminine side, it makes sense that the two of them would have the same best friend--one based on HER best friend (and perhaps this is why Ron feels like the most well-rounded of the three to me--she's not permitting some of her qualities to go into either Harry or Hermione while she conserves them for the other character). One could argue in this case that this makes it more likely that she'll pair Hermione and Ron--(would she pair herself with herself?) or you could use the same information to argue Hermione/Harry (together they make a whole). Or this could be the main argument of the non-shippers. We obviously won't know for sure for a while. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From heidit at netbox.com Tue May 21 01:18:32 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidit at netbox.com) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 21:18:32 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neville's tortured Parents... In-Reply-To: 8b54 Message-ID: <16600080.1978448944@imcingular.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38936 Are you trying to say that Barty really didn't do it? That neville, as a toddler, somehow managed wandless magic of the strength needed for Crucio? Then what was (the presumed) Mrs Lestrange going on about? ----Original Message---- From: "finwitch" Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neville's tortured Parents... Real-To: "finwitch" A real bangy idea just came to me-- what if *Neville*, toddler Neville had a temper tantrum -- and *that* is what caused his parents torture? The *first* time he ever did any magic, not understanding it at all. Then, he simply forgot it... but he *is* feeling guilty, because somewhere deep inside he remembers - remembers when ever something is hurt- He's afraid to do magic because someone might get hurt; So afraid that only instinct of survival could bring it out of him. He seems to be close in coming to terms with Crouch's spider. Did Moody know? Did Crouch Jr. know? Neville can't learn effective magic until he gets in terms with the torturer!Neville -- Finwitch ________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 heidit at netbox.com Tue May 21 01:23:55 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 18:23:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? (WAS The Night The Jobberknoll Screamed) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020521012355.60611.qmail@web9502.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38937 --- cindysphynx wrote: > Real-To: "cindysphynx" > > Abigail wrote: > > > Are the HP Schoolbooks canon? > > Hmmm. I was always pretty sure that they are canon. > There is no > question that they were written by JKR, after all, > which is the > definition of canon. > > I'm not the final authority, though. We'll have to > get a ruling > from Lexicon Steve. Steve has certainly incorporated references from the Schoolbooks onto the Lexicon, which, IMHO, means that he accepts them as canon. > I wonder about one thing, though. Has anyone ever > found any way in > which the schoolbooks are consistent with the first > four books? They're consistent in at least 4 places: 1. The reference in FB to Acromantulas (giant spiders) which notes that reports of a colony in scotland have been "confirmed" by Harry Potter & Ron Weasley 2. The bit about Kappas - there's a "scribbled" note that someone should tell snape that they're not native to Japan (from PoA, when he said they were in subbing for Lupin's class) 3. The reference to Moaning Myrtle having a crush on Harry, also in FB 4. In QTTA, there's a scribbled reference to Ron rooting for a lame team The overarching inconsistancy is that books seem to be checked out in the summertime - but that could be explained by Owl Post. The unknown factor is that the books were clearly published for Muggles in 2001 - and the covernote is signed by Albus Dumbledore, which seems to imply that he was alive in 2001, well after Harry has finished his 7th year. Well, we'll know eventually if *that* is a Flint. Heidi Tandy (who did all the above without opening a book, but who knows that none of it is canon-inaccurate :) __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue May 21 02:08:41 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 02:08:41 -0000 Subject: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? (WAS The Night The Jobberknoll Screamed) In-Reply-To: <20020521012355.60611.qmail@web9502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38938 I wrote: > > I wonder about one thing, though. Has anyone ever > > found any way in > > which the schoolbooks are consistent with the first > > four books? Heidi replied, right off the top of her head without so much as cracking a book: > They're consistent in at least 4 places: Uh oh. Ooops! I had a little slip of the finger there. I meant *inconsistencies*. I mean, places where JKR messed up and put something in the schoolbooks that doesn't square with canon in the first four books. Sorry, Heidi. Cindy (finally confessing in public that she has never even *read* "Quiddich Through The Ages", and who seems to have misplaced her only copy) From pennylin at swbell.net Tue May 21 02:19:02 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 21:19:02 -0500 Subject: Evil!Percy References: Message-ID: <006501c2006d$dfbb6230$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38939 Hi -- Moirae said: <<<>> Where? Source please. :--) [This group always likes to see the specific interview or chat that's being cited ...] I've definitely never heard this one. <<<>>>>> I think your last statement contradicts your argument ...did you mean the most likely or the most unlikely? We discussed this very topic just a few weeks back. If you start with Message #37242 and search the threaded replies as well as the messages from that week, you'll get a good sense of recent discussions on this topic. I think Percy will be sorely tested, but he is not evil. I don't believe he would ever intentionally ally himself with Voldemort or intentionally assist Voldemort's followers. See Message #37242 for all my thoughts on this topic. Penny (Proud founder of P.I.N.E.) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From selah_1977 at yahoo.com Tue May 21 03:49:36 2002 From: selah_1977 at yahoo.com (selah_1977) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 03:49:36 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Harry, Hermione, Ron and JKR's Split personality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38940 Hello, everyone--quick re-introduction, as I haven't posted here in dog years--Ebony AKA AngieJ, mostly on the Convention/Gathering and Evil!Fanfic (chuckle) side of the fandom these days, but wanted to poke my head back in here to respond to this: Ana wrote: > > I often read that Rowling based Hermione's character on herself > > and Ron's--on her own best friend, what's-his-name. Now, I don't > > know how a writer's mind works (and it's a shame, after all those > > months of reading fanfiction I should :)), but with romance not > > being the central theme of the books and all that... wouldn't it > > be more economical for Rowling to take a perfectly good best > > friends relationship from real life, maybe with some romantic > > interest at some point, but definitely just best friends in the > > end... and just put it on paper instead of inventing something > > different for these two? And Barb wrote: > You make a good point, but OTOH, I think that Harry is even more > based on JKR than Hermione. So if she's writing Harry as the masculine side of herself and Hermione as the feminine side, it makes sense that the two of them would have the same best friend--one based on HER best friend (and perhaps this is why Ron feels like the most well-rounded of the three to me--she's not permitting some of her qualities to go into either Harry or Hermione while she conserves them for the other character). One could argue in this case that this makes it more likely that she'll pair Hermione and Ron--(would she pair herself with herself?) or you could use the same information to argue Hermione/Harry (together they make a whole). Or this could be the main argument of the non-shippers. We obviously won't know for sure for a while.<< Other than Ron being perhaps the most well-rounded of the Trio (hmm...), I think that both Ana and Barb's points are interesting, considering a post I made in December 2000-- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/7284 It's extremely difficult to use psychoanalytic criticism with the HP books, as the author is living and very private with the details of her personal life... not nearly as easy as doing seminar papers applying Lacan to say, Mary Shelley or James Joyce. Nevertheless, a year and a half after I posted that theory, I really haven't changed my mind much. This is why I pretty much stopped debating ship over six months ago after a year of doing so. I now believe that one cannot *prove* ship to people, and neither should one feel compelled to do so. Shipping is based upon a sum total of how people read the books, their RL experiences, what they believe is important in love and romance, etc. It is not always contingent upon the actual canon, either--a year ago, we had a *long* discussion going in which quite a few H/Hers said they didn't like the romances in *Little Women*, either. In another fandom of mine, we have something called the "Dean vs. Teddy" debate--in that particular author's stories, all of my ships are canon, but there are plenty of people who I respect who believe that the ending of this particular series was pretty badly written (which I concede) and that the female protagonist ended up with the wrong guy (which I do not concede ;-)). I've seen compelling arguments for Ron/Hermione over the past two year, but in those same two years none have rung as true for me as Harry/Hermione theory and what I read as Harry/Hermione subtext in canon. Similarly, I am sure that Ron/Hermione theories, fanfic, and canon events (esp. in GoF) have convinced others... indeed, reading GoF nearly swayed me to concede Ron/Hermione as a likely scenario in the near canonical future (I conceded this kicking and screaming, I should note--I was not happy about it at all at first!) and I still think canon is going that way. And while Ron/Hermione is not my ship of preference, I cannot say it is total anathema to me. I've read my share of it. Heck, I've *written* it. If it happens, it happens. If it doesn't, it doesn't. This will still be a great series no matter what the pairings are. Because when all is said and done, I've read these books just as many times as any fan who's been around for a while. I've seen shipping debates come and go... and I still think I'm right. I'm still as much in favor of H/H as I ever was. Judging from the three weeks' worth of posts I just skimmed, and recognizing many familiar posters and positions on both sides, I think that I am far from alone. Those who leaned R/H a year ago still lean that way, those who lean H/H along with me still lean that way, and the no-shippers are still gritting their teeth at us all. :) As far as Harry getting no girl because he is the Hero on a Hero's Quest/Journey, JKR's own words refute that--she has definitely confirmed that romance is in the cards for the young Mr. Potter (and I daresay she reads them better than Trelawney!). Perhaps with a new character. Perhaps with someone we have already met. I can honestly say that I don't know, and I am looking forward to finding out what JKR has in store for us. That is, whenever Book 5 comes out... sigh... --Ebony AKA AngieJ From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 21 04:38:50 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 04:38:50 -0000 Subject: Hermione: Panic Attacks & Tears? (Was Hermione as mirror of Snape) In-Reply-To: <001f01c20043$3c4c2ff0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38941 > Marina: > > Not to mention casting Petrificus Totalus on Neville. > > > > But none of these actions were the result of her losing > self-control,were they? In each case, Hermione was doing what > she thought was necessary to achieve a specific goal. > <> > > I think overall Hermione does have much better > anger-management skills than Snape<<<< > me again: > <<<< >>>>>>> Penny: > Sure, let's talk about those times, shall we? > > Panic attacks: > > 1. In SS during the Devil's snare episode ("Are you a witch or not?!") > 2. While riding Buckbeak behind Harry (not so much *panic* as just general discomfort with flying on a hippogriff) > > Tears: > > 1. In the bathroom all day after Ron's cutting remarks about her, before she's friends with the boys (SS) > 2. When she is awarded the 10 points for her cool use of logic under fire, she looks as though she *could* burst into tears (Harry suspects she has) (SS) > 3. I could think of nothing in CoS off-hand > 4. She cries when Ron makes it clear that she's not welcome to join in the post-game party (you know the *2nd* time that Harry makes overtures to try and make things up with Hermione .... that time) (POA) > 5. Hagrid says she has cried a fair few times over her estrangement from Harry and Ron (POA) > 6. She cries when she makes up with Ron at last (POA) > 7. She cries when Harry & Ron make-up with each other (GOF) > > No evidence that Hermione dissolves into a pile of mush and cries at the drop of a hat, and there's especially no evidence that she bursts into tears (or otherwise succumbs to emotion) when the pressure is on. All the evidence points to is that she takes it very badly indeed when any of the Trio are at odds with each other. > > By all means though, if you have other evidence that Hermione panics on a regular basis or bursts into tears at the drop of a hat, please elaborate. :--) Me, I think Hermione qualifies as Tough. at Cindy.<<<<< Hermione doesn't panic on a regular basis or burst into tears at the drop of a hat -- but neither does Snape. Hermione is panic stricken in GoF when she's struck by Draco's misplaced curse and her eyes fill with tears after Snape's nasty crack. I know, I know, she's only 14 but she's still going to have to do better than that if she wants to be an Auror. BTW, Ron should get credit for keeping a cool head in emergencies. Even when terrifed by Aragog, he's still functional enough to rescue Fang in CoS. He's also willing to take damage points, which Harry thinks must be an important part of the Auror job. Pippin From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Tue May 21 07:28:04 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 08:28:04 +0100 Subject: Dumbledore - brilliant but scary? References: <1426091044.20020520172413@mindspring.com> Message-ID: <00a201c20099$0bf99ee0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 38942 > i> I don't think he is ever so evil, but he scares me sometimes. One > i> example being his "little chat" with Nicholas Flamel, the thought of > i> which always makes me shudder. Anyone else imagines it being to the > i> tune of "For the sake of the wizarding population, this wizard must > i> die", or is it just me? > > Yes, I must admit I do have an image of D. holding his wand to > Flamel's throat... (There *has* to ve a reason Voldy fears him!) > > -- > Dave > I'm not so sure. I thought that they * agreed * to destroy the stone and, after all, being 600+ years old I suppose you have * been there - done that * more times than you care to remember. Maybe Flamel did not feel so badly about going after all this time. I suspect the discussion was a gentlemanly one with wry smiles all around and a perhaps slightly reluctant agreement to say goodby to life. Felicia From igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk Tue May 21 11:33:05 2002 From: igenite_olwyn at blueyonder.co.uk (Olwyn) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:33:05 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Neville's tortured Parents... References: <16600080.1978448944@imcingular.com> Message-ID: <001701c200bb$4b621a40$0200a8c0@blueyonder.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 38943 Heidi wrote >>Are you trying to say that Barty really didn't do it? That neville, as a toddler, somehow managed wandless magic of the strength needed for Crucio? Then what was (the presumed) Mrs Lestrange going on about?<< My take on what was meant (nice theory btw Finwitch) was that Neville had a tantrum, did something magical completely by accident to the people holding his parents and then as a direct result of that his parents were subjected to additional torture or the torture happened just after. So in his head, which couldn't understand what was happening at the time, magic=people he cares about getting hurt and he would therefore shy away from it, even if he does it without realising. Olly [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue May 21 11:34:15 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 11:34:15 -0000 Subject: Of identities and truth (and Boggarts) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38944 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "brenna_britton" wrote: > Amanda Geist wrote: > > > Has anyone noticed that people associated with Voldemort seem to > spend an > > awful lot of time faking identities? > > > > Examples: > SS/PS - Quirrel > COS - Ginny's forced actions > POA - Pettigrew > GOF - Crouch Jr. > > > Amanda, you've got a very interesting point, and I just have one more > character to add to your list: Tom Riddle. In COS, Voldemort assumes > the identity of his younger self, which was his true identity at one > point, but certainly isn't now. Moreove, Tom presents a false front > designed to gain Ginny's trust and enable him to feed on her soul. In CoS, it is not current Voldemort that Ginny and Harry encounter. It is a magical memory of Voldemort's self at sixteen. That is why for Diary!Tom it came as news that Harry had vanquished him. However, Tom Riddle is the most complete example of a fake identity in the books. In all the examples given above, the fake identity was assumed as a temporary measure for a specific goal. Tom Riddle was completely false. The persona by which he was known to the people around him (handsome, "poor but so brave", etc.) was a cold, deliberately constructed facade designed to get him what he wants. He is the complete psychopath (or is it sociopath?) - using his charm to manipulate everybody around him, intentionally and with full self- awareness. After he matures, gains strength and no longer needs others, he discards the facade and emerges as his true self - Voldemort. (Although, from a deeper perspective, when he becomes Voldemort he really gives up any possibility of becoming an authentic self. In discarding his name he is discarding his heritage and with it, his humanity. His flight from death has this point of origin, the shedding of his human self. He must achieve immortality, since death is the point at which his true, mortal self necessarily catchs up with him.) Naama From blpurdom at yahoo.com Tue May 21 11:55:37 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 11:55:37 -0000 Subject: Hermione: Panic Attacks & Tears? (Was Hermione as mirror of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38945 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Hermione is panic stricken in GoF when she's struck by Draco's > misplaced curse and her eyes fill with tears after Snape's nasty > crack. I know, I know, she's only 14 but she's still going to have > to do better than that if she wants to be an Auror. > > BTW, Ron should get credit for keeping a cool head in > emergencies. Even when terrifed by Aragog, he's still functional > enough to rescue Fang in CoS. He's also willing to take damage > points, which Harry thinks must be an important part of the Auror > job. Thanks for making that point. I'm rather weary of folks pointing out that Crouch, while pretending to be Moody, didn't think Ron would make a good Auror. I think we have to remember that a) he simply didn't SAY Ron would make a good Auror; and b) he had ulterior motives for everything he said/did (such as being nice to Neville and giving him the book on water plants). So--consider the (possible) ulterior motives for his telling Harry and Hermione they'd make good Aurors (not that they wouldn't) and not telling Ron (when it seems he would make a very good Auror for the reasons Pippin cited). Telling Hermione she'd make a good Auror--It's possible that he doesn't really believe this. I suspect he may see her emotional side as a weakness. A good Death Eater wants to encourage people to be Aurors whom he thinks he could beat. (He's very likely wrong, but that's another story.) Telling Harry--Crouch wants to build him up and give him the confidence to win the Tournament. He may also be convinced he could beat Harry and that Harry would not make a good Auror, but more importantly he doesn't think of Harry as a threat because he expects Voldemort to kill him as soon as Crouch delivers him, so the Auror question is moot. Not telling Ron--This may be a clue that Crouch thinks Ron is the most dangerous of the three. Why would he want to encourage someone he thinks is good to be an Auror? Plus, by telling two of them and not the third, he fosters a neat little rift in the Trio. (Short- lived, but he underestimates the three of them many times.) There may be more possible motivations I haven't thought of, but I really don't think we should be taking anything Crouch said when he wasn't under Veritaserum at face value--all of it is highly suspect. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb From eclipse02134 at yahoo.com Tue May 21 07:47:25 2002 From: eclipse02134 at yahoo.com (Eclipse) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 00:47:25 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Opening For a Gryffindor Chaser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020521074725.74654.qmail@web20809.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38946 I hadn't realised this until I was thinking about it the other day. Angelina Johnson is a chaser for the Gryffindor team. In Goblet of Fire she says that she put her name in the goblet. This means that she is a seventh year and is done with her schooling at the end of the book. This means that there is an opening for a chaser as well as keeper on the Gryffindor team. Eclipse __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue May 21 08:09:53 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 08:09:53 -0000 Subject: R.E hermione as mirror of Snape-surely its Ron? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38947 My apologies in advance if this has already been extensively discussed but... surely Snape's mirror in the junior Trio is Ron? Snape 'hung around with a group of Slytherins'; Ron would probably be described as hanging around with a couple of Gryffindors. Snape is a Olympic Gold Medal standard grudge holder; Ron's performance in grudge holding in PoA and GoF must mean the team selectors are at least considering him. Snape is hot tempered - even if he has learnt to mostly confine it to nasty comments (and that must be difficult for someone who spent his early adulthood being told 'hey, it's ok to murder and torture people who annoy you); Ron is pretty hot tempered as well. Snape seems to have completely cut himself off from his family, and stands alone; in PS/SS we find that that is *part* of Ron's deepest desire. Snape is bitter. Does anyone else read Ron's constant 'I hate being poor' comments with a feeling of foreboding? Snape is underneath it all, basically good. So is Ron. Pip (who has a nasty feeling Ron's future could be remarkably like Snape's past, but doesn't want it to be) From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue May 21 06:59:05 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 06:59:05 -0000 Subject: Of identities and truth(and Death Eaters, oh my!) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38948 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: > Here's something else I thought of that fits: the Death Eaters wear > hooded cloaks and masks. Not only does this conceal their identities, > it makes them pretty much indistinguishable from each other. They > stop being individuals and become Voldemort's faceless tools. Ah, and is this for Voldemort's benefit or their's? I was watching Silence of The Lambs the other night when it came on TV, and this one particular scene now sticks out in my mind: On the television, it was showing the the young kinapped girl's mother pleading with "Bufalo Bill" to let her daughter go. She continually repeated the girl's name, and a person watching the TV commented on this: saying that it was smart of the mother to be repeating the girl's name in an attempt to make the captor realize that her daughter is a real person- making it harder for him to kill her. Do you think this could apply to Voldemort as well when he keeps his DE's hooded and masked? Hmm...making them lose some of their more human individualities so as to make it easier for him to send them killing and rampaging about? I'm definately not going to read alot into Voldemort somehow being not Totally Evil, but it's just a though. Then again, it could be for his DE's benefit. Perhaps he requires them to remain hooded and masked so if one is caught, he can't easily give his fellow DE's away- they were hooded and masked, how can they possibly be sure of the each other's true identities? And also, it represents a sort of militant sameness, does it not? They must look indistinguishable from each other, and perhaps that helps to harden them, become less human in doing their jobs. Also, to play on the disguise idea- perhaps wearing their Death Eater costumes, putting on their masks and hiding their identities makes it easier for them to pretend they're someone else and do the dirty work. ~Aldrea From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue May 21 12:09:31 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:09:31 -0000 Subject: Hermione's anger (was R.E hermione as mirror of Snape) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38949 Marina: > > > But none of these actions were the result of her losing > > self-control,were they? In each case, Hermione was doing what > > she thought was necessary to achieve a specific goal. Pippin: > >I wasn't just thinking of acting in a fit of temper. I was thinking of letting anger take one to extremes. Marina: > But that's just it, Hermione doesn't let anger take her to extremes. > When she set Snape on fire in PS/SS, or drugged Crabbe and Goyle in > CoS, she didn't do it because she was angry at them, she did it > because she thought it was the most efficient way to achieve what she > wanted. I hadn't really thought about this before, but in COS, Hermione's anger *is* the driving force in the Polyjuice incident. Both Ron and Harry express reservations, and Hermione overcomes them, not by reasoned argument indicating this is the only course possible to act against a grave threat to the school, but by threatening to lose her temper. She intimidates them. And, yes it's achieving what she wants, but she wants it because she is angry with Draco over his Mudblood insults. Extreme? A matter of opinion. But classic 'rational actor' behaviour? I don't think so. David From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue May 21 12:38:27 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:38:27 -0000 Subject: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38950 cindysphynx wrote: > Abigail wrote: > > Are the HP Schoolbooks canon? > > Hmmm. I was always pretty sure that they are canon. There is no > question that they were written by JKR, after all, which is the > definition of canon. > > I'm not the final authority, though. We'll have to get a ruling > from Lexicon Steve. > > Steve? > > Cindy As soons as Cindy mentioned Steve (universally acclaimed as the *second* most important authority in canon matters, after JKR herself), I thought of another member of our little (!) comunity who has some pretty impresive archive of near-canon: Alberfoth's Goat (a.k.a. Mike), and his onion of canon-oriented material: Mike wrote: > The set of texts carrying at least some authority includes the > following: > 1.UK editions of PS, CoS, PoA and GoF (unmarked 2nd edition). > (1st ed GoF has been ruled out; all translations, including US, and > talking books should be considered derivatives.) > 2.QA and FB > 3.JKR's press releases > 4.Direct interviews with JKR (printed and recorded). (Presently, > I have about 70 linked from my site - and these are only the ones > I've managed to find on the internet!) > 5.Indirect interviews with JKR (i.e., the authors says what > Rowling told him but doesn't give a direct quote.) > 6.The film, standard edition > 7.The film, director's cut (Not yet available; possibly never - > but we can always hope and petition). (A detailed explanation can be found in: http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/canon.htm) When using canon myself, I always use this as the main guide (with Steve's Lexicon in 2.5). To answer the original question, Yes, I do think that the schoolbooks are canon and No, I don't think there are major inconsistencies between them and the regular Harry books. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue May 21 12:45:20 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:45:20 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Harry, Hermione, Ron and JKR's Split personality In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38951 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "selah_1977" wrote: > Hello, everyone--quick re-introduction, as I haven't posted here in > dog years--Ebony AKA AngieJ, mostly on the Convention/Gathering and > Evil!Fanfic (chuckle) side of the fandom these days, but wanted to > poke my head back in here to respond to this: > Welcome back, Ebony! > considering a post I made in December 2000-- > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/7284 > > It's extremely difficult to use psychoanalytic criticism with the HP > books, as the author is living and very private with the details of > her personal life... not nearly as easy as doing seminar papers > applying Lacan to say, Mary Shelley or James Joyce. Nevertheless, a > year and a half after I posted that theory, I really haven't changed > my mind much. I think I agree with your conclusion, but in a much less roundabouut way. I really think it misconceived to consider that, because JKR has stated that in part Hermione is based on herself (and some other characters are based on friends and acquaintances), one can predict how shipping or other aspects of the story will go. Surely JKR is sufficiently savvy as an author to, for example, put in two characters based on a real life relationship, and then have them do something *different*. Surely she is capable of basing Hermione on herself and then thinking, "If I were in that situation, this is what I would do, but I'm *not* going to make Hermione do that, I'm going to develop her in a way that is different from mine." So, on the one hand, I believe that autobiography is a useless guide, but I believe that even if we had the information Ebony refers to, we *still* wouldn't be in a position to make predictions. IOW, I am skeptical of the value of a psychoanalytic approach to HP. > This is why I pretty much stopped debating ship over six months ago > after a year of doing so. I now believe that one cannot *prove* ship > to people, and neither should one feel compelled to do so. Shipping > is based upon a sum total of how people read the books, their RL > experiences, what they believe is important in love and romance, etc. > Those > who leaned R/H a year ago still lean that way, those who lean H/H > along with me still lean that way, and the no-shippers are still > gritting their teeth at us all. :) It is curious how little positions do change. I don't think shipping is special in that regard, just that people care about it more. And, possibly, find it harder to distinguish what they prefer from what they believe. I would hate to look back on my time with HPFGU and say that I never wrong-footed my opponents by means of a masterful flip-flop in position. :-) I would like to 'prove' shipping to *myself*, in a sense, though. It is true that my position has changed little from the moment I put down GOF. However, it is a lot clearer to me what my position is, and in the long term I would like to drag what Elkins would call my instinctive readings into the light of consciousness. That is, to try to factor out my RL experiences and beliefs about what is important from my interpretation of canon. Success could possibly be indicated by reading a post by Ebony or Penny, and thinking, "Yes, if I stood where they stand, I too would think as they think". The debates here are enormously valuable for that process and mean a lot to me. I have fondly imagined that my shipping posts have incrementally advanced in the sense of better incorporating the results of discussions here. I certainly feel I have learned a lot. To say that I want to move from thesis and antithesis to synthesis makes me sound like a philosophical poseur, but it's not far from how I conceive my participation in HPFGU. David, currently away from home (When I get back, will attempt to get back to you all on coherence, join in the Neville Symposium, and do a belated post on a God-like character in the Potterverse in response to Porphyria's Job essay) From pennylin at swbell.net Tue May 21 13:04:46 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 08:04:46 -0500 Subject: Hermione: Panic Attacks & Tears? (Was Hermione as mirror of Snape) References: Message-ID: <00e701c200c8$1537e8c0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38952 Hi -- --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > Hermione is panic stricken in GoF when she's struck by Draco's > misplaced curse and her eyes fill with tears after Snape's nasty > crack. I know, I know, she's only 14 but she's still going to have > to do better than that if she wants to be an Auror. I feel I should point out that there's no indication that Hermione *wants* to be an Auror. As usual with Hermione, she is pleased to receive praise and compliments, especially from a respected professor. But, the person within the Trio who very, very obviously *wants* to be an Auror is *Ron.* He's the one who is said to be "eager to be told that he too has the makings of an Auror." He's the one who brings it up again, more than once IIRC. As for needing to "do better than that" to be an Auror, as I pointed out yesterday, Hermione doesn't lose her cool when the going gets tough (with the one exception of the Devil's snare incident). She also doesn't succumb to an emotional reaction except when personal arguments with friends are at play or in the case of the Snape incident that you mention, when she has been personally attacked by someone in a position of authority (someone who, IMHO, should know better & not abuse their position of power to prey on the sensitivities of students ..... but that's another issue). Ron, OTOH, is the impetuous one. He's the one who reacts almost exclusively in an emotional way. He's the one with tendenices that need to be curbed or rechanneled for him to be effective as an Auror. I've always had the impression that Ron just shoots off his mouth with the first thing that pops into his head, and he's also quite stubbornly resistant to changing his first impressions. Pippin went on to say: > > BTW, Ron should get credit for keeping a cool head in > emergencies. Even when terrifed by Aragog, he's still functional > enough to rescue Fang in CoS. He's also willing to take damage > points, which Harry thinks must be an important part of the Auror > job. Barb responded with: <<>>>>>>> He didn't say Ron would make a good Auror, but he did say that Harry and Hermione would each make a good Auror. The implication is pretty clear, especially when you add in the statement that "Ron was obviously hoping to be told that he too had the makings of an Auror." As for motives, Barb is quite right to point out that Crouch-as-Moody obviously might have ulterior motives for making the statements that he did. *However,* I think it's important to consider that the other possibility is that JKR was making this point herself and simply forgot to consider that we would later view Crouch-as-Moody's pronouncements with suspicion. So, we're back to the "red herring vs. red flag" arguments, aren't we? I still say it's a red flag and that Ron is falling behind the other two. Then again, based on what we know so far about Aurors and what they do, I'd agree with Crouch-as-Moody's assessments: Harry and Hermione do both employ a mix of logic and emotional gut reactions. Ron employs strictly emotional gut reactions, which are almost always wrong (thus far). Ron has his moments in the resolution of each book (except POA) .... but he's not been very key to actually *solving* the problems so far other than getting across the Chess Board in SS. It's Hermione's library work & Harry's logic that figure out the basilisk problem in CoS; it's again Hermione and Harry who figure out what needs to be done to save Buckbeak and Sirius in POA and it's mainly Harry, aided by the spells and hexes that Hermione found and Ron helped him practice with, who gets himself out of GoF. Barb: <<>>>>> Again, IMO Ron doesn't have the full skill-set needed for Auror-ship (based on what we know about Aurors). Yes, as Pippin notes, he's cool under pressure. But, other than Devil's snare, so is Hermione. So is Harry. I see no other evidence that Ron would make a good auror, and in fact, his emotional off-the-cuff impetuosity is probably a liability. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From abigailnus at yahoo.com Tue May 21 15:17:11 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 15:17:11 -0000 Subject: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38953 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > cindysphynx wrote: > > Abigail wrote: > > > Are the HP Schoolbooks canon? > > > > Hmmm. I was always pretty sure that they are canon. There is no > > question that they were written by JKR, after all, which is the > > definition of canon. > When using canon myself, I always use this as the main guide (with > Steve's Lexicon in 2.5). To answer the original question, Yes, I do > think that the schoolbooks are canon and No, I don't think there are > major inconsistencies between them and the regular Harry books. I don't think I made myself clear. I'm not suggesting that the schoolbooks are not canon in the sense that they are not true within the Potterverse, or that they conflict with the books - this is obviously not the case. I'm simply pointing out the following: (a) JKR has a tendancy to lay out the foundation for any major plot point well ahead of time, albeit in a subtle way. Cindy suggested three exceptions to this tendancy: Hermione's Time-Turner, Moody's magical trunk and Voldemort's Revival potion. In the case of the Time-Turner I think it was so obvious what Hermione was doing that all the readers needed was a name for a phenomenon they had already observed. It's not as if Hermione suddenly remembered a time-travel spell - the entire book from the minute the trio arrive at Hogwarts is pointing out, in big bold letters, that she is traveling through time. Moody's trunk is, in my opinion, a minor detail. I mean, it's hardly important where Crouch Jr. is keeping Moody, is it? The foundation that JKR needs to lay out in GoF is for the revelation that Moody isn't who he says he is - and she does, including having him confess to entering Harry in the tournament in front of Dumbledore, we just misconstrue the facts. The Revival potion is another matter. Personally, I find it the most unsatisfying element in all four books precisely because there is no foreshadowing, no mention of dark revival rituals (except for a few cryptic comments from Wormtail at the beginning of the book.) However, one mess up, however big, in four books still does not disprove the fact that JKR has a strong *tendancy* to lay her foundations well ahead of time. (b) FB and QttA were certainly not part of JKR's original seven-book-plan, and were probably conceived of and written after GoF was completed. JKR was originally told by her publisher not to expect any royalties from the PS, and she figured that 2000 pounds a year for seven years would allow her to work only part-time and spend more time with her daughter. Even if she thought the book might be a success, there's just no way she ever imagined how wildly successful it would be. FB and QttA were a charity venture, and while I don't know exactly whose idea they were, I do know there was also a Bridget Jones companion volume that came out in time for Red Nose Day, 2001, so is it a fair assumption that both Helen Fielding and JKR were approached by a Comic Relief representative with the idea, and not the other way around? In that case it makes no sense for JKR to plan a plot point based on information contained in books that she had no idea she was going to write when she first planned the series out. Taking these two pointss into account, I just can't reasonably imagine a plot point in some future book that involves the sudden revelation of information from FB or QttA *without* having that information previously mentioned in the book itself (in much the same way that the description of an Animagus is repeated at the beginning of PoA even though we have both seen and heard a description of them in PS.) I would consider it sloppy writing. And we can't very well hold ourselves to a lower standard than JKR, right? Abigail From heidit at netbox.com Tue May 21 16:30:45 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 09:30:45 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020521163045.66146.qmail@web9503.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38954 --- abigailnus wrote: > > I don't think I made myself clear. I'm not > suggesting that the schoolbooks > are not canon in the sense that they are not true > within the Potterverse, > or that they conflict with the books - this is > obviously not the case > (b) FB and QttA were certainly not part of JKR's > original seven-book-plan, and > were probably conceived of and written after GoF was > completed. > FB and QttA were a charity > venture, and while I don't know > exactly whose idea they were, I do know there was > also a Bridget Jones companion > volume that came out in time for Red Nose Day, 2001, > so is it a fair assumption > that both Helen Fielding and JKR were approached by > a Comic Relief representative > with the idea, and not the other way around? In > that case it makes no sense for > JKR to plan a plot point based on information > contained in books that she had no > idea she was going to write when she first planned > the series out. > > Taking these two pointss into account, I just can't > reasonably imagine a plot point in > some future book that involves the sudden revelation > of information from FB or QttA > *without* having that information previously > mentioned in the book itself (in much > the same way that the description of an Animagus is > repeated at the beginning of > PoA even though we have both seen and heard a > description of them in PS.) I would > consider it sloppy writing. And we can't very well > hold ourselves to a lower standard > than JKR, right? Abigail, I am going to respectfully disagree with the "logic path" you've laid out above. First, as I understand it, the books were written simultaneous with the editing of GoF, but I actually consider that somewhat irrelevant. We know from JKR's comments that she had "always had a sneaking desire to write FANTASTIC BEASTS & WHERE TO FIND THEM and QUIDDITCH THROUGH THE AGES, so when Richard Curtis of Comic Relief wrote to me, I thought it was a wonderful opportunity to help a charity I have always supported." Here's a bit from another interview from 2001: I always write more than I need for the books so bits ofthem were just written for my own fun. So when Comic Relief asked me to write something Ithought I would just love to write them, I just thought it would be so much fun and I wascompletely correct. It was more fun than I've had writing the others.How did these books come about?I got a letter from Richard Curtis who started Comic Relief saying would you consider writingus a short story? And then he cunningly said something like "I'm sure you won't, we'll stilllove your books, even if you don't but just thought we'd ask". Which is a very clever way ofasking someone to do something. But I didn't really need much persuasion as I have alwayssupported Comic Relief, and I think they do fantastic work, so I wrote back and said yes butI'm not good at short stories particularly not short Harry stories I tend to ramble on, so howwould it be if I wrote a couple of the titles that appear by title in the novels so that's how it allstarted. And I decided to do two because just because I had two in my head and I couldn'treally decide between Fantastic Beasts and Quidditch so I thought we'll do them both. I really recommend the interview here: http://www.raincoast.com/harrysbooks/pdf/JK_Rowling_interview.pdf - because it gets into the background for FB and QTTA. I think that as the books were significantly comprised of things she had already written as the backstory to things happening on the pages of the books - things which, perhaps, predated even the publication of PS - it's very clear to me that there may be plot points coming in future books which involve things described or discussed in the books - most likely in FB, but who knows? Perhaps Harry is the descendent of the inventor of the Golden Snitch, who lived in Godric's Hollow. Perhaps Hagrid will bring a Hairy MacBoon to class. We'll all know eventually. I am not sure, Abigail, why you consider it sloppy writing to have a number of files and notes and backstory things put together, and which JKR uses in writing the books, but the details of which we may not know. I think it's actually a sign of a well-organized mind, and hopefully a good Flint-preventor. What do you think is sloppy about having the "research material" and the backstories, and then publishing a version of some of them? heidi tandy __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From drjennyfer at hotmail.com Tue May 21 15:00:11 2002 From: drjennyfer at hotmail.com (drjennyfer) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 15:00:11 -0000 Subject: Professor Sinistra Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38955 Sorry if this has been mentioned before - I can't read ALL the posts. Reading around the posts, and also in the lexicon, I'm confused. Why all the confusion over Professor Sinistra's gender? She was dancing with Moody at the Yule Ball in GoF (sorry - don't have the ref/quote handy). I think it was something like they were "doing an ungainly two-step." Is this canon proof that Sinistra is female? I suppose she could technically be male, but isn't that geting a bit far-fetched? Is she referred to as he/she in any of the translated editions? But then, I don't think they count as canon (and I'm not trying to start that debate!) Jen From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Tue May 21 17:43:43 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 18:43:43 +0100 Subject: Professor Sinistra References: Message-ID: <00c701c200ef$0cd589e0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 38956 > Sorry if this has been mentioned before - I can't read ALL the > posts. > Reading around the posts, and also in the lexicon, I'm confused. Why > all the confusion over Professor Sinistra's gender? She was dancing > with Moody at the Yule Ball in GoF (sorry - don't have the ref/quote > handy). I think it was something like they were "doing an ungainly > two-step." Is this canon proof that Sinistra is female? I suppose she > could technically be male, but isn't that geting a bit far-fetched? > Is she referred to as he/she in any of the translated editions? But > then, I don't think they count as canon (and I'm not trying to start that > debate!) > > Jen > Might not a chap (in line with A often being female and O being male) that in indicating Sinistra was a chap JKR would have given him a more* masculine * moniker. I always assumed Professor Sinistra was a woman (even before she danced with Moody). Just like I always assumed Lupin was pronouced with way of the English flower until someone suggested it coud be pronounced differently. Ah well! * g * Felicia From jenserai at hotmail.com Tue May 21 14:28:56 2002 From: jenserai at hotmail.com (Jenserai Bariman) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 07:28:56 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione: Panic Attacks & Tears? (Was Hermione as mirror of Snape) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38957 Penny wrote: >Again, IMO Ron doesn't have the full skill-set needed for Auror-ship (based >on what we know about Aurors). Yes, as Pippin notes, he's cool >under >pressure. But, other than Devil's snare, so is Hermione. Wait a moment, I'm confused here. It was Ron who panicked when they fell into the Devil's Snare Hermione who kept a cool head and got them out of it wasn't it?? -Jens _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue May 21 17:59:48 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 17:59:48 -0000 Subject: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? In-Reply-To: <20020521163045.66146.qmail@web9503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38958 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., heidi tandy wrote: > I am not sure, Abigail, why you consider it sloppy > writing to have a number of files and notes and > backstory things put together, and which JKR uses in > writing the books, but the details of which we may not > know. I think it's actually a sign of a well-organized > mind, and hopefully a good Flint-preventor. What do > you think is sloppy about having the "research > material" and the backstories, and then publishing a > version of some of them? > I'm not Abigail, but I'll tackle the question, because my views on the matter seem to be similar to hers. :-) Having notes on backstory and research notes certainly is not sloppy writing. Neither is publishing such notes in supplemental material. But using this material as the basis for a major plot point in the novels *without providing the necessary information in the novels themselves* would be very sloppy indeed. So if, say, the death cry of a Jobberknoll provides an important plot revelation in a future novel, I would expect to see an explanation of the Jobberknoll's nature somewhere in that novel, or in one of the previous novels. To omit the explanation because it's already been given in FB would be sloppy writing, IMO. It should be possible for an attentive reader to understand all the major events in the novels without having to read anything besides the novels themselves. Not that I would ever expect to see such sloppiness in the HP books, because JKR has always taken care to supply necessary explanations within the novels. Thus in CoS, we learn about the nature of phoenix tears long before Fawkes heals Harry in the Chamber. We learn about Polyjuice loooong before Crouch Jr. uses it to impersonate Moody. We learn about Priori Incantatem before Harry and Voldemort have their duel. Based on her past record, I would expect JKR to continue in the same manner. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue May 21 18:22:16 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 18:22:16 -0000 Subject: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38959 Marina wrote: > But using this material as the basis for a major plot point in the > novels *without providing the necessary information in the novels > themselves* would be very sloppy indeed. So if, say, the death cry of > a Jobberknoll provides an important plot revelation in a future novel, > I would expect to see an explanation of the Jobberknoll's nature > somewhere in that novel, or in one of the previous novels. To omit > the explanation because it's already been given in FB would be sloppy > writing, IMO. Yes, but, the Jobberknoll theory doesn't violate any of these principles at all. The whole Jobberknoll theory is that the Jobberknoll figures into the torture of the Longbottoms. We have not yet been told exactly what happened that night, although I suspect we will be told in the next three books. So in OoP (or Book 6 or 7), JKR could easily have Neville (or Moody or Snape or Dumbledore) tell us the tale, explaining right then exactly what the Jobberknoll is and even revealing that the Longbottoms had one. So how would that be a canon problem or violate JKR's foreshadowing tendencies? Obviously, she would have to explain in OoP what a Jobberknoll is, but I don't see how that fact undermines the Jobberknoll theory at all. Can someone explain that to me? Now, if I tried to explain some FLINT in the first 4 books using the schoolbooks, well . . . maybe there would be an argument that it might be a misuse of canon (although I still don't think it would be). But if we're speculating about what we might learn later about an open canon question, and if we know that the schoolbooks definitely concern aspects of the wizarding world as devised by JKR, I see no reason why we can't theorize using something in Fantastic Beasts or QA. Abigail: >I just can't reasonably imagine a plot >point in some future book that involves the sudden revelation of >information from FB or QttA *without* having that information >previously mentioned in the book itself (in much >the same way that the description of an Animagus is repeated at the >beginning of PoA even though we have both seen and heard a >description of them in PS.) I'm still rather puzzled. In GoF, the Dark Mark gets fired into the sky. We have no idea at the time what it is supposed to mean; it comes out of nowhere, IIRC. It is a very important plot point. JKR explains it to the reader *after* the whole scene in the forest. So that is another example where JKR just puts a magical concept out there and explains it for us later. As for Jobberknoll, isn't it a simple matter for JKR to have a character in OoP mention a Jobberknoll and have another character ask, "What's that?" followed by an explanation? That's exactly how JKR handles the Dark Mark. I'm puzzled, I really am. Puzzled!Cindy From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Tue May 21 18:51:57 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 18:51:57 -0000 Subject: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38960 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > The whole Jobberknoll theory is that the Jobberknoll figures into > the torture of the Longbottoms. We have not yet been told exactly > what happened that night, although I suspect we will be told in the > next three books. So in OoP (or Book 6 or 7), JKR could easily have > Neville (or Moody or Snape or Dumbledore) tell us the tale, > explaining right then exactly what the Jobberknoll is and even > revealing that the Longbottoms had one. > > So how would that be a canon problem or violate JKR's foreshadowing > tendencies? Obviously, she would have to explain in OoP what a > Jobberknoll is, but I don't see how that fact undermines the > Jobberknoll theory at all. It doesn't. My comments were not meant to cast aspersions on the Jobberknoll theory, which I find no more farfetched than any of the other Neville theories (take that as you will :-). > I'm still rather puzzled. In GoF, the Dark Mark gets fired into the > sky. We have no idea at the time what it is supposed to mean; it > comes out of nowhere, IIRC. It is a very important plot point. JKR > explains it to the reader *after* the whole scene in the forest. So > that is another example where JKR just puts a magical concept out > there and explains it for us later. I don't think it's quite the same thing. First of all, the "magical concept" of the Dark Mark is pretty generic -- it's possible to use magic to conjure pictures in the sky. I don't think this is so radical, or so specific to the HP universe, that it requires special foreshadowing. Nor is it important to the plot -- it's not like the ability to conjure pictures in the sky becomes important later. The importance of the Mark lies in its symbolic meaning and the characters' reactions to it. As such, the Mark isn't really a plot point -- it in itself is foreshadowing. It establishes the existence of the DEs, allows for the introduction of the Priori Intantatem spell, gives Arthur a chance to talk about what the bad old days were like, and sets up the possibility of Lucius Malfoy being a DE. (It also provides a visual and thematic tie-in with the Dark Marks the DEs have on their arms, but I don't know if I'd call that foreshadowing.) Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From pennylin at swbell.net Tue May 21 19:11:52 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 14:11:52 -0500 Subject: Hermione: Panic Attacks & Tears? (Was Hermione as mirror of Snape) Message-ID: <01b701c200fb$5db0e2e0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38961 Hi -- Penny wrote: >Again, IMO Ron doesn't have the full skill-set needed for Auror-ship (based >on what we know about Aurors). Yes, as Pippin notes, he's cool >under >pressure. But, other than Devil's snare, so is Hermione. Jens said: <<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, only in the movie is it this way. In the book, one of the funniest lines ever is Hermione panicking at the Devil's snare attacking the boys & laments the lack of wood to make a fire & Ron says, "Are you a witch or not?!" Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue May 21 19:20:35 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:20:35 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione: Panic Attacks & Tears? (Was Hermione as mirror of Snape) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <86587284292.20020521122035@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38962 Hi, Tuesday, May 21, 2002, 7:28:56 AM, Jenserai wrote: > Wait a moment, I'm confused here. It was Ron who panicked when they > fell > into the Devil's Snare Hermione who kept a cool head and got them out > of it > wasn't it?? In the movie version it was that way. In the book Ron doesn't panic. Hermione remembers how to kill/disable Devil's snare, but "forgets" she's a witch for a moment . Here's the section from PS/SS: ************************* "Devil's Snare, Devil's Snare... what did Professor Sprout say? -- it likes the dark and the damp "So light a fire!" Harry choked. "Yes -- of course -- but there's no wood!" Hermione cried, wringing her hands. "HAVE YOU GONE MAD?" Ron bellowed. "ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?" "Oh, right!" said Hermione, and she whipped out her wand, waved it, muttered something, and sent a jet of the same bluebell flames she had used on Snape at the plant. ************************ -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From siskiou at earthlink.net Tue May 21 19:33:41 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:33:41 -0700 Subject: Auror? was Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione: Panic Attacks & Tears? In-Reply-To: <00e701c200c8$1537e8c0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> References: <00e701c200c8$1537e8c0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: <101588070346.20020521123341@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38963 Hi, Tuesday, May 21, 2002, 6:04:46 AM, Penny wrote: > I feel I should point out that there's no indication that Hermione > *wants* to be an Auror. As usual with Hermione, she is pleased to > receive praise and compliments, especially from a respected professor. > But, the person within the Trio who very, very obviously *wants* to be > an Auror is *Ron.* He's the one who is said to be "eager to be told > that he too has the makings of an Auror." He's the one who brings it up > again, more than once IIRC. I'm not sure if Ron wants to be an auror, either. I have the feeling he might desperately want some acknowledgement, some praise, anything... That's why I think he blurts out all sorts of theories, hoping to get a compliment, too, in that scene. In GoF I was feeling pretty bad about Ron's and Harry's falling out and I understand Harry's feelings, but I also very much understand where Ron is coming from. While many people think he has a wonderful life/family and should just get over things, it isn't always that easy. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 21 19:38:39 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 19:38:39 -0000 Subject: Hermione: Panic Attacks & Tears? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38964 > Penny wrote: > >>>Again, IMO Ron doesn't have the full skill-set needed for Auror-ship (based on what we know about Aurors). Yes, as Pippin notes, he's cool >under pressure. But, other than Devil's snare, so is Hermione.<<<< Hermione panicked in GoF as soon as she was hit by Draco's curse, *before* Snape sneered at her -- and it could be that the sneer was meant to bring her to her senses, just like Ron's "HAVE YOU GONE MAD? ARE YOU A WITCH OR NOT?" Ron can think logically --when playing chess or solving the keys puzzle, but he can act in a hurry because he trusts his intuition. Hermione needs *time* to think everything out. When she has to deal with a situation she's not prepared for in advance, she tends to panic -- as with Boggart McGonagall, to give another example. I am not sure why Ron's intuitiveness should be thought such a handicap to an Auror. Ron's off the cuff suggestions are sometimes useless but they aren't usually harmful. Sometimes they do suggest the solution, as when he takes Harry's bugging remark literally. That's thinking outside the box, IMO. I don't see his temper as that much of a problem either. He can hold himself back when he needs to. We don't hear about him getting in trouble for fighting when Hermione and Harry aren't around to grab his robes or give him warning looks. Jen wrote: >>>> Wait a moment, I'm confused here. It was Ron who panicked when they fell into the Devil's Snare Hermione who kept a cool head and got them out of it wasn't it??<<< > Er, no. I fear you've been corrupted by the Dark Side of the Fo--I mean, the celluloid thingy In the books, Hermione remembers that Devil's Snare likes dark and damp. Harry suggests lighting a fire, but Hermione cries, "There's no wood!" and wrings her hands. Ron yells at her in capital letters, reminding her that she is a witch. Penny said: >>>She also doesn't succumb to an emotional reaction except when personal arguments with friends are at play or in the case of the Snape incident that you mention, when she has been personally attacked by someone in a position of authority <<< So it's okay for an Auror to lose it when things get personal? Also, as has just been pointed out in another thread, Evil Wizards generally hide their dark marks under someone else's sleeves. If Hermione becomes an Auror, she'll have to be prepared to deal with it should someone in authority turn on her. Suppose she'd been with Harry when Lockhart tried to curse them in his office, would she have caught the wand like Ron did, or would she have panicked? David said: I>>> in COS, Hermione's anger *is* the driving force in the Polyjuice incident. . And, yes it's achieving what she wants, but she wants it because she is angry with Draco over his Mudblood insults.<<< The same is true of Hermione's vigilante action against Rita Skeeter. OTOH, Real!Moody goes out of his way to bring dark wizards in alive. He turns them in even though he knows he can't always trust the wizarding justice system to deal with them as he thinks it should. Compare that to the way Hermione deals with Rita, holding her captive on no authority but her own. [Penny mentioned that Ron was being left behind by Hermione and Harry in DADA:] I think Ron and Hermione are both getting left behind by Harry, who, according to JKR, has now surpassed Hermione at DADA and would beat her in a duel. Ron did win his bout with Seamus Finnegan at the dueling club broken wand and all, in contrast to Hermione who got into a wrestling match with Miss Bulstrode, having once again, it seems, forgotten that she is a witch. I'd personally rather see Hermione with the Department of Mysteries--she could exercise her talent for investigation and her penchant for secrecy as well. Pippin From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Tue May 21 19:53:52 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 12:53:52 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Professor Sinistra In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <17176280775.20020521125352@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38965 I think most people regard Sinistra as female, even speculation that the black witch at the Staff table in the film might be she... Though I still hold out hope that Sinistra in fact resembles Italian-American Astronomy popularizer and Veela incarnate, Fiorella Terenzi. :) -- Dave From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue May 21 19:53:24 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 19:53:24 -0000 Subject: Professor Sinistra/Canon and non-canon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38966 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "drjennyfer" wrote: > Sorry if this has been mentioned before - I can't read ALL the > posts. > Reading around the posts, and also in the lexicon, I'm confused. Why > all the confusion over Professor Sinistra's gender? She was dancing > with Moody at the Yule Ball in GoF (sorry - don't have the ref/quote > handy). I think it was something like they were "doing an ungainly > two-step." Is this canon proof that Sinistra is female? I suppose she > could technically be male, but isn't that geting a bit far-fetched? > Is she referred to as he/she in any of the translated editions? But > then, I don't think they count as canon (and I'm not trying to start that > debate!) > > Jen Good little piece of evidence in favor of Sinistra's gender. I don't think it's been mentioned before, either (but as you say, I don't think anyone has read ALL the posts). As a matter of fact, my (translatd) edition, into a language that, unlike English, has genders, Sinistra is, in fact, determined as female, on the line of the "techeress" Sinistra, IIRC. I myself have always thought of her as female, obviously, but I've refrained from commenting it as canon, for several reasons. The first reason, as I said in my previous post, is that translated editions of the books are not Canon by Alberfoth's Goat scale, and I respect that. There is a second reason, however, much more important: I've worked as a translator for an editorial and, although I didn't translate fiction but technical texts, I've seen (and had to do myself) the sort of logical (and sometimes faith) jumps one has to do to translate even the easiest piece of text. So much information is generally accepted as "already known" by authors that when translating you just have to put in your own ideas, especially if some of that information (as in this case) has to be transformed from implied to explained. Resuming: the low line is that translators have to invent many things when translating. Sometimes, the author is available for consultation (or so I'm told; I never could contact any of the authors myself), but most of the time it's the tranlator the one who is supposed to piece the bits toghether, and put in the missing piece by making it match as much as possible. As a result, I deeply mistrust any sort of translated work, since you never know when the tranlators could've changed the original. If you don't believe me, I've got 23 recorded examples in a single series of books (The Belgariad) where the tranlators changed phrases, speakers, or simply cutted full paragraphs when tranlating into my language. After that, I decided I was never reading the series in anything but the original language ever again. Anyway, to answer the question: Are translated books canon? I wouldn't accept it in most cases, but I could make an exception in this particular case, since JKR since the sort of busy-body person that would take personal interest in the correct translation of her books (as she took personal interest on the film-which-must-not-be-named). If she WAS available for this sort of qustions ("excuse me, Mrs. Rowling, but I need to know whether the teacher Sinistra is male"), they could be considered almost canon (maybe a 3.7 or so in the Alberfoth's scale). The counter argument for this is the fact that names finishing in "a" in my language are subsconciously asociated with Female names, so the translators could just have made the jump on their own without consulting anyone. The counter against this is the fact that surnames don't follow that particular rule. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From abigailnus at yahoo.com Tue May 21 20:13:24 2002 From: abigailnus at yahoo.com (abigailnus) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 20:13:24 -0000 Subject: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38967 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Marina wrote: > > > But using this material as the basis for a major plot point in the > > novels *without providing the necessary information in the novels > > themselves* would be very sloppy indeed. So if, say, the death > cry of > > a Jobberknoll provides an important plot revelation in a future > novel, > > I would expect to see an explanation of the Jobberknoll's nature > > somewhere in that novel, or in one of the previous novels. To omit > > the explanation because it's already been given in FB would be > sloppy > > writing, IMO. > > Yes, but, the Jobberknoll theory doesn't violate any of these > principles at all. > So how would that be a canon problem or violate JKR's foreshadowing > tendencies? Obviously, she would have to explain in OoP what a > Jobberknoll is, but I don't see how that fact undermines the > Jobberknoll theory at all. Can someone explain that to me? Oh dear. I really thought this whole "Are the schoolbooks canon?" business was a rather petty aside, and now it's ballooned into a monster. Let me see if I can set things straight. There seem to be two issues here. The first is canon support. The second is canon violation. Now, obviously, Jobberknoll doesn't violate canon - it is in fact based on canonically true material. However, you suggested Jobberknoll as a way of getting around Elkins' claim that Reverse Memory Charm theories involved a yellow flag violation (because, for those of you keeping score, there has never been any mention in the books of a charm/potion/spell/magical device for retrieving memories.) In my original message I wondered whether this wasn't a yellow flag violation in itself, as I felt that the schoolbooks were "weak" canon. You're right, of course, that if in a future book a Jobberknoll is mentioned, however briefly, this would give a massive boost to your theory and provide sufficient foreshadowing. The problem is that it hasn't happened yet. I think we're all agreed that in order for JKR to realistically introduce a Jobberknoll potion (or any other plot point based on the schoolbooks) she would first have to reintroduce the information in the books themselves. Which means that the presence of a Jobberknoll in FB is of absolutely no importance as far as canon *support* goes, because we're still waiting for JKR to validate that mention in the books themselves. To summarize, there's nothing wrong with using the scholbooks for theorizing, but the schoolbooks themselves don't provide canonical support. In other words, what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel Jobberknoll has any more or less support in canon than any other flavor of Reverse Memory Charm. Abigail From heidit at netbox.com Tue May 21 20:27:14 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heidi tandy) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 13:27:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020521202714.97871.qmail@web9504.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38968 --- abigailnus wrote: > Oh dear. I really thought this whole "Are the > schoolbooks canon?" > business was a rather petty aside, and now it's > ballooned into a monster. Water ballooned? :) (actually, that does sometimes happen here - see the thread started from my one line last week on Pride& Prejudice) > Jobberknoll as a way > of getting around Elkins' claim that Reverse Memory > Charm theories involved > a yellow flag violation (because, for those of you > keeping score, there has > never been any mention in the books of a > charm/potion/spell/magical device > for retrieving memories.) But there is - a Pensieve. It retrieves them, holds them, makes it possible to reexamine them. And we know from CoS that there's a way to get your memory back after a Memory Charm - that's what they sent Gilderoy away to do. So even if we don't know exactly what it's called, we know that it's out there, the same way that we knew that Voldemort had minions before Book 4, but we didn't know that they were called Death Eaters. > To summarize, there's nothing wrong with using the > scholbooks for theorizing, > but the schoolbooks themselves don't provide > canonical support. I still don't understand why you feel that they don't provide canonical support. If you feel that way about this, then you can't take the scribbled note in FB to be canon evidence that Hogwarts is located in Scotland. You can't conclude that the Chudley Canons are a load of duffers. You can't even know that a Minister of Magic hundreds of years ago was a woman. You're really limiting yourself out of a lot of things that JKR has as truths in the HP universe if you say that the schoolbooks don't provide canonical support. ===== heidi tandy They say its a sign of mental health to hold apparently contradictory ideas in your mind. The world of late has been a particularly exotic stew of horror and beauty. There are killers, there are saints. The trick is to find the right spot on the spectrum between abject despair and total obliviousness. And then carry on... Joel Achenbach __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience http://launch.yahoo.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Tue May 21 20:38:52 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 20:38:52 -0000 Subject: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38969 Abigail wrote: > You're right, of course, that if in a future book a Jobberknoll is > mentioned, however briefly, this would give a massive boost to your > theory and provide sufficient foreshadowing. The problem is that it > hasn't happened yet. I think we're all agreed that in order for JKR > to realistically introduce a Jobberknoll potion (or any other plot > point based on the schoolbooks) she would first have to reintroduce > the information in the books themselves. Which means that the > presence of a Jobberknoll in FB is of absolutely no importance as far > as canon *support* goes, because we're still waiting for JKR to > validate that mention in the books themselves. > > To summarize, there's nothing wrong with using the scholbooks for > theorizing, but the schoolbooks themselves don't provide canonical > support. In other words, what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel > Jobberknoll has any more or less support in canon than any other > flavor of Reverse Memory Charm. > > Abigail To set the record strait, I'm not defending the Jobberknoll theory here *especifically*, although it's probably going to look like it. The fact is that FB(awtft) IS canonical evidence of high rating, from the point of view of explaining and theorizing both. Let me put an example: months back (when I was almost a newbie), I made a theory that was supposed to be a joke about how Neville was going to finish off Draco, since by an old japanese story a yellow bird is the only enemy the dragon fears, and that would have been foreshadowed by the yellow cannary Neville turns into and Draco's name. This wasn't intended to be taken seriously but nonetheless, several people wrote back to sink it. One of the major canon aginst it was that there is no mention of such legend in the Potterverse. That is, no-one has told us about it anywhere. There aren't even Japanese dragons in Potterverse, IIRC. My point? That the Jobberknoll theory has already got the foundations laid: We know that JKR has already created a bird that reproduces the souds he has heard when he dies, so she could use it in the future. If the theory had been based in an external fantastical creature (lets say, the Longbottoms had a Slith friend -note the "i"- who sees it all and survives by simulating being a stuffed cocrodile), then it would be so much more unprobable that it would ever happen, we wouldn't be even have this discussion (it would be stupid, since sliths don't look that much like cocrodiles, but it's only an exagerated example). Resuming: by using a creature JKR has invented, the theory is already canon-based, since it *exists* a (non-infenitesimal) posibility of JKR sometime using the same plot idea. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who searched for the most obscure fantastical creature he could think of, and who wonders if many people in this list even *know* what a Slith is, when not refering to a student from Slytherin From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue May 21 21:58:14 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 21:58:14 -0000 Subject: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? (Some TBAY) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38970 Abigail wrote: > Oh dear. I really thought this whole "Are the schoolbooks canon?" > business was a rather petty aside, and now it's ballooned into a >monster. That's OK. Actually, it *is* rather interesting, don't you think? It never occurred to me that there might be a pecking order of canon -- that some things might be considered better established or more legitimate because they arise in the books rather than the schoolbooks. So it is certainly worth discussing, IMHO. Abigail wrote: > Let me see if I can set things straight. There seem to be two >issues here. The first is canon support. The second is canon >violation. > > Now, obviously, Jobberknoll doesn't violate canon - it is in fact >based on canonically true material. However, you suggested >Jobberknoll as a way of getting around Elkins' claim that Reverse >Memory Charm theories involved a yellow flag violation (because, >for those of you keeping score, there has never been any mention in >the books of a charm/potion/spell/magical device > for retrieving memories.) In my original message I wondered >whether this wasn't a yellow flag violation in itself, as I felt >that the schoolbooks were "weak" canon. Hmmm. Well, I suggested a Yellow Flag Violation as a term to describe supporting a theory by inventing a magical device or spell. That's obviously a no-no. But it's a fairly bright line, I think. Either the person proposing the theory made up a device/spell/character or they didn't. If the device/spell/character expressly exists in canon, there can't possibly be a yellow flag violation as I'm using the term. It sounds like you're objecting more on the ground that the Jobberknoll theory is less persuasive for you because of the decreased probability in your eyes that JKR will use something from the schoolbooks as the premise of an important plot revelation. I can understand that objection, but I just don't agree, I think. In fact, it seems to me *very* likely that the Fantastic Beasts in the schoolbooks would be the basis for a *minor* plot revelation (how the crime against the Longbottoms was solved and Neville's backstory) rather than a major one that JKR would like to keep secret. So I figure all of OoP won't rest on Lethifolds (which only appear in FB), but some minor background revelation might. Just MHO, though. Abigail: > You're right, of course, that if in a future book a Jobberknoll is >mentioned, however briefly, this would give a massive boost to your >theory and provide sufficient foreshadowing. I still don't see why the Jobberknoll theory (or any other theory premised solely on the schoolbooks) couldn't work in OoP absent a prior mention in that book or a prior book. Here's an example of how the Jobberknoll could come up: *************** Neville: Geez, every time I hear a high-pitched noise, it reminds me of the night my parents being tortured. Harry: No way! Neville: Way! See, Moody told me that the Jobberknoll was the key to solving the crime. Harry: Say what? Neville: The Jobberknoll. Geez, Harry, don't you know what a Jobberknoll is? We used to have one for a pet . . . [insert Neville's account of the Jobberknoll theory]. ************ In other words, the Jobberknoll could be *central* to the Longbottom backstory even though it hasn't been mentioned in the narrative precisely because we haven't been told the Longbottom backstory yet. Abigail: >I think we're all agreed that in order for JKR to realistically >introduce a Jobberknoll potion (or any other plot point based on >the schoolbooks) she would first have to reintroduce the >information in the books themselves. Weeeelllll, we're not all in agreement, because I don't agree. :-) In our example, I think she could "introduce" the Jobberknoll potion at the same instant she introduces the Longbottom backstory. This is what she did with the Timeturner. Oh, I know what everyone is thinking -- "But she foreshadowed the heck out of the timeturner!" That's true, and she may have foreshadowed the time turner *too* much. But she has rather indirectly foreshadowed the Jobberknoll by mentioning that the Longbottoms couldn't give testimony, by giving us a timeline that suggests Neville was too young to give testimony, and by making clear that the perps were apprehended. I think that there is plenty of foreshadowing already for her to use a Jobberknoll in the manner I suggested, particularly as the Longbottom backstory is probably not all that important. Abigail: >Which means that the presence of a Jobberknoll in FB is of >absolutely no importance as far as canon *support* goes, because >we're still waiting for JKR to validate that mention in the books >themselves. I don't fully follow the distinction between canon support and canon violation. I mean, conceptually, they're just two sides of the same coin, aren't they? If you have a theory, you can be shot down if there isn't a reasonable basis in canon to support it (Reverse Memory Charm) or if, heaven forbid, you've overlooked something in canon that undermines the theory (ToadKeeper). Either way, you have a noncanonical theory, right? Conversely, if you a theory premised on something in the schoolbooks and not contradicted by anything else in canon, then you by definition have canon support, I'd say. Whether the theory is wobbly on other grounds is always an open question, though. ;-) Oh, and here's a Yellow Flag, courtesy of Dicey: |~~| |~~| | Cindy (who thinks the Jobberknoll theory has *lots* of problems, but canon support for the Jobberknoll part isn't one of them) From eclipse02134 at yahoo.com Tue May 21 20:51:21 2002 From: eclipse02134 at yahoo.com (Eclipse) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 13:51:21 -0700 (PDT) Subject: TBAY: Neville's tortured Parents... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020521205121.30473.qmail@web20809.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38971 ("Finwitch wrote:") > > > A real bangy idea just came to me-- what if > > > *Neville*, toddler > > > caused his parents > > > torture?The *first* time he ever did any magic, > not > > > understanding it > > > at all. Then, he simply forgot it... but he *is* > > > feeling guilty, > > > because somewhere deep inside he remembers - > > > remembers when ever > > > something is hurt- He's afraid to do magic > because > > > someone might get > > > hurt; So afraid that only instinct of survival > could > > > bring it out of > > > him. (snipped out parts) If you want to be really mean you could have the Death Eaters up Neville under Imperious and then have him use one of his parents wands to torture them. While he would not be stropng enough to do any real damage, a Death Eater could stand behind him and make it seem to Neville that he was torturing his parents. This could also be why he does poorly at magic. His first remembered used of magic is torturing his parents. Eclipse From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue May 21 21:34:32 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 21:34:32 -0000 Subject: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38972 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "abigailnus" wrote: > You're right, of course, that if in a future book a Jobberknoll is mentioned, > however briefly, this would give a massive boost to your theory and provide > sufficient foreshadowing. The problem is that it hasn't happened yet. I think > we're all agreed that in order for JKR to realistically introduce a Jobberknoll > potion (or any other plot point based on the schoolbooks) she would first have > to reintroduce the information in the books themselves. Which means that > the presence of a Jobberknoll in FB is of absolutely no importance as far as > canon *support* goes, because we're still waiting for JKR to validate that > mention in the books themselves. Yes - and she *has* done so - at what point Voldemort told Wormtail that he was supposed to do an important task that some of his supporters would "give their right hands for"? Wasn't that in the very *beginning* of the book - they were *planning* to kill Harry during a massive event *after* the QWC. Wormtail objects that any other wizard would suffice... What's this little chat, if not a foreshadowing? Or that milking Nadine would soon not be necessary? > To summarize, there's nothing wrong with using the scholbooks for theorizing, > but the schoolbooks themselves don't provide canonical support. In other > words, what I'm trying to say is that I don't feel Jobberknoll has any more or > less support in canon than any other flavor of Reverse Memory Charm. Schoolbooks for theorising-- Well, let's just say that it's almost certain that *any* magical creature in *any* role in the 7 books is in FB, but not all the creatures in FB need to be in the 7 books. (Nothing to prevent Hagrid or someone else creating a *new* species, but the new species-outside FB- explaining a past event would be clumsy.) Hope that helps, -- Finwitch From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue May 21 23:22:48 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 23:22:48 -0000 Subject: Hermione: Learning (Was: Panic Attacks & Tears?); Divination In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38973 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "pippin_999" wrote: > > The same is true of Hermione's vigilante action against Rita > Skeeter. OTOH, Real!Moody goes out of his way to bring dark > wizards in alive. He turns them in even though he knows he > can't always trust the wizarding justice system to deal with them > as he thinks it should. Compare that to the way Hermione deals > with Rita, holding her captive on no authority but her own. > > [Penny mentioned that Ron was being left behind by Hermione > and Harry in DADA:] > > I think Ron and Hermione are both getting left behind by Harry, > who, according to JKR, has now surpassed Hermione at DADA > and would beat her in a duel. Ron did win his bout with Seamus > Finnegan at the dueling club broken wand and all, in contrast to > Hermione who got into a wrestling match with Miss Bulstrode, > having once again, it seems, forgotten that she is a witch. > > I'd personally rather see Hermione with the Department of > Mysteries--she could exercise her talent for investigation and > her penchant for secrecy as well. Yes - well, Ron's *intuition* and familiarity with wizarding world, Hermione's research abilities and Harry's extraordinary abilities in throwing out Imperious Curse work well together. What Hermione's auror-potential is- is in *finding out*, noticing things and drawing conclusions. Like the *basilisk* - though the critical information came from Harry's parsel-tongue, she's the one who put things together. It's just her need to *consult a book* that gets into her way, usually. She needs to advance into modern Empirism - she's still in the mathematical logic/authority-believer. House-elves are getting her there... No books. She's giving nil to both Hagrid's and Ron's *empiric* information as *prejudice*, and even House-elves themselves *brain-washed*! She definately has lots to learn. She's not of the WW - books won't help her, Logic is of no use, she refuses to listen... She's seen unfair treatmeant. We have yet to see where this leads, but I believe the house-elf situation is giving Hermione a lesson: Books, logic and authorities aren't everything. Divination I think it's more of a way Harry and Ron find things about themselves and learn self-acceptance. It's a lesson turned *inwards* - very unlike everything else they learn. It's no co-incidence, IMO, that Divination comes to play in the same book with Dementors (worst experiences), Boggarts (worst fears), Harry leaving Dursleys on a self-based method, coming to realise how much he really *needs* a parent, meeting his father's friends, learning a Patronus (based on a Happy thought)-- Harry's learning a lot about *himself*. Harry has trouble accepting that he's not like others; He needed to accept being orphan. He *has*, which enables hime to summon the Patronus saving Sirius. In GoF, when Harry meets the Dementor/Boggart in the maze, he handles it with *ease*. Or as Dumbledore put it - found his father inside himself. Ron, OTOH has serious acceptance-problems about his poverty. Thus he can't accept "charity" - like the Omniculars... Remember what Sibyl was praising them of? *Accepting* their mortality. Now that's the *real* lesson of her constantly "foretelling" death. Picking up *Harry Potter*, the one who *survived* the *Killing* Curse as the one should be very effective in this. If *Harry* is to die, certainly the rest are, too. Hermione & McGonagall just can't see the value of knowing oneself and the *subtle* way it is handled. That's the *Sight*, the Inner Eye. They can't feel what Divination really is-- They're far too *concious* about things - but Divination deals with Subconcious. It's Important Lesson. Maybe Harry's Divination lessons helped him deal with Moody's Imperius? It comes from *within*, and such things are not something you learn from a book - but maybe something you *do* learn in Divination. -- Finwitch From pennylin at swbell.net Tue May 21 23:47:07 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 18:47:07 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hermione: Panic Attacks & Tears? References: Message-ID: <021501c20121$d115f1a0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38974 Hi all -- I conceded that Ron was cool under pressure but noted that Hermione & Harry both are as well. In particular, I noted that Hermione had never panicked under pressure other than the Devil's Snare incident in SS. Pippin responded with: <<<>>>> She was "whimpering in panic" at what Malfoy's curse had done to her.... but it's not as though she was involved in a life-or-death situation immediately prior to being cursed and panicked as a result of the pressure. There was no edge of pressure beforehand; no sense that she needed to be mentally prepared for Bad Things. If she were an Auror, she's approach all life events a bit differently. However, she probably (and understandbly) didn't expect that potions class could be dangerous for her that day. Sorry, but I'm going to pass on even attempting to excuse Snape's behavior in this instance. Deliberate cruelty, just for the sake of cruelty, to a student is not something any teacher should engage in, IMHO. Besides, "bring her back to her senses?" How so? "Let's see, my teeth are hanging down past my chin & continuing to grow ... oh yeah, now that I'm calmer, I can see that yes, indeed, my teeth *are* hanging down past my chin & continuing to grow. Yes, I feel better about it all now." No, I think Hermione was quite well aware of the reality of the situation. Pippin again: <<<<<>>>>>>> Well, I can't comment on how much logic is involved in chess, but more than once, Ron has commented, "Hush up ... give me some time to think about this" when he's playing chess. So, I'm not so sure that Ron is any more quick on his feet than Hermione. As for the keys puzzle, all Ron did was examine the lock & suggest what shape key they were looking for. I'm not so sure that's logic either; not in my book. Can you give me some other examples where Ron acts quickly and it is actually the right action, the right answer, etc.? I can't think of a single instance ... but maybe I'm just not being fair to Ron. As for Hermione, I don't think she panics in unfamiliar situations at all. We have 3 instances of panic: the Troll incident, which I'd forgotten until just now, the Devil's Snare in SS and the rebounded curse on her teeth in Potions discussed above. Devil's Snare was her first "adventure" -- since then, she's been fine. Dumbledore awarded her points for the "cool use of logic in the face of fire." *He* doesn't think she panicked under fire, despite the Devil's Snare snafu. In fact, Hermione's one big post-Troll slip-up corresponds nicely with Ron's one shining moment of glory, also in PS/SS (the chess scene). Back to Hermione though ... let's see. Potions Challenge -- covered that. CoS ... I don't think her reaction to her mistake in the polyjuice (turning into a cat rather than Millicent Bulstrode) can be considered panic. She's embarassed but not panicked IMO. And, what would Harry/Crabbe & Ron/Goyle done with her as a large cat anyway? They really couldn't have taken her along, even if she'd wanted to join them anyway. She was petrified by the basilisk, which precluded her participation in the dangerous events of journeying down to the Chamber... but it hardly seems that she panicked ... she was carrying a mirror around in the interests of preparedness and wasn't killed as a result. In the duel in CoS, how are we to know that Millicent Bulstrode didn't initiate the non-duelling aspect of their duel. Given their sizes, it seems reasonable to presume that it might not have been Hermione "forgetting once again that she is a witch" as Pippin suggests ... but if Millicent jumped her, knocking her wand to the floor & restrained her in a headlock, it'd be a bit difficult to respond back. :--) PoA -- I don't think Boggart McGonagall qualifies as panicking in unfamiliar situations. All Boggart McGonagall confirms is that Hermione fears failing academically more than anything. Hermione is certainly under considerable pressure from her overly ambitious academic schedule in PoA, and this manifests itself in her emotional outbursts on a few occasions. But, by the end of the book, she's learned her lesson, turned in the TimeTurner & gone back to normalcy, realizing her own limitations. In the high-stress scenes at the end, I can't think of an instance when Hermione panics either. She succumbs to the Dementors; but so does Sirius Black. She did *try* to help Harry conjure a Patronus. She sounds skeptical at various points along the way but she helps Harry figure out what needs to be done to rescue Buckbeak & Sirius. She's nervous about riding on Buckbeak ... but that hardly seems reason to disqualify her from being an Auror. She does admittedly seem paralyzed & unsure what to do when she & Harry need to follow Ron & dog/Sirius into the tunnel near the Whomping Willow. But, Harry doesn't know what to do there either; it's Crookshanks who gets them through that barrier. GoF -- Since Harry was really more or less on his own during the pivotal events, I'm having a hard time thinking of any possible situation when Hermione might have panicked in any way. Anyone? <<<<<>>>>> Thinking outside the box .... OR a lucky happenstance remark, which suggested the solution to *Hermione*. I said: >>>She also doesn't succumb to an emotional reaction except when personal arguments with friends are at play or in the case of the Snape incident that you mention, when she has been personally attacked by someone in a position of authority <<< Pippin asked: << >>> Ron is just as apt to "lose it" when things get personal. He just doesn't cry; he loses his temper. :--) <<<>>> If she becomes an Auror, she *will* be prepared for this sort of thing. I don't think she needs to expect that her teachers will make cutting remarks at her personal expense to satisfy their own cruel whims. I think we're losing sight of the reason that Crouch-as-Moody suggested that both Harry and Hermione would make good Aurors is because their minds "work the right way." He apparently didn't think that Ron's mind works the same way, and I don't think it does. Now whether Crouch-as-Moody had ulterior motives & *really* thinks Ron is the dangerous one to DEs and other Bad Guys is open to debate. But, the fact is: all we know so far about the qualification for an Auror, though admittedly from a source who may not be entirely reliable, is that their minds need to work a certain way. Harry & Hermione (esp. Hermione) *do* tend to use logic and to a lesser extent emotional gut reactions. Hermione uses more logic & less emotions; Harry uses more emotions & less logic ... but they both employ a mix of thought processes. IMHO, Ron does not. It makes perfect sense to me that his talents are not the same type as his friends. This is not intended to suggest that he doesn't *have* talents, but I'm having a hard time understanding why we have to try & make his talents be the same type as those of his friends, Harry & Hermione. Why can't we just accept that they each bring something different to the equation? Maybe what Harry & Hermoine have in the way of talent *does* make them more suited to careers as aurors. I'm not sure we know enough about aurors & what they do on a day-to-day basis to make conclusions about Ron's suitability or not. Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From finwitch at yahoo.com Tue May 21 23:50:33 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 23:50:33 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Neville's tortured Parents... In-Reply-To: <20020521205121.30473.qmail@web20809.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38975 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Eclipse wrote: > > (snipped out parts) > > If you want to be really mean you could have the > Death Eaters up Neville under Imperious and then have > him use one of his parents wands to torture them. > While he would not be stropng enough to do any real > damage, a Death Eater could stand behind him and make > it seem to Neville that he was torturing his parents. > This could also be why he does poorly at magic. His > first remembered used of magic is torturing his > parents. Yes, that *would* be dark... -- the DE under invisibility cloak, so that it seems even to Neville's *parents* that it was Neville! Very bad, very dark... and - would explain quite a lot about poor little Neville. He does have that connection: I'm doing magic = someone gets hurt = must avoid doing magic. Someone yells at me = I get scared = magic happens trough me = someone gets hurt = people who are nasty to me are dangerous... As he got older, being brave and self-sacrificial (due guilt?) he figures it better be himself who gets hurt. (Very much like Remus Lupin about being werewolf). So what's Neville's reaction to when he a) must do magic and b) can't aim it at himself Then he aims it at the *most* strong and dangerous one around. (Flitwick gets banished...) All subconcious Neville isn't aware of... -- Finwitch From suzchiles at pobox.com Wed May 22 00:26:39 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 17:26:39 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Are The Schoolbooks Canon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38976 > -----Original Message----- > From: finwitch [mailto:finwitch at yahoo.com] > Schoolbooks for theorising-- Well, let's just say that it's almost > certain that *any* magical creature in *any* role in the 7 books is > in FB, but not all the creatures in FB need to be in the 7 books. > (Nothing to prevent Hagrid or someone else creating a *new* species, > but the new species-outside FB- explaining a past event would be > clumsy.) Not at all, imho. There never was any claim that FB was the definitive guide to beasts. After all, it's a text book for pre-university students ... I'm quite sure that there are plenty of beasts that are too complex for the book. Zoe From chetah27 at hotmail.com Tue May 21 21:11:41 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Tue, 21 May 2002 21:11:41 -0000 Subject: Revival Potion/Dark Mark (Was: Re: Are The Schoolbooks Canon?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38977 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: The Revival potion is another matter. Personally, I find it the most unsatisfying element in all four books precisely because there is no foreshadowing, no mention of dark revival rituals (except for a few cryptic comments from Wormtail at the beginning of the book.) However, one mess up, however big, in four books still does not disprove the fact that JKR has a strong *tendancy* to lay her foundations well ahead of time. Um...I don't quite see the big deal with this. Does JKR have to foreshadow every major spell/potion? I don't really even see how she could have foreshadowed this Ritual, as Harry had never had a chance to encounter such a thing before. That's the basic way the potions/spells are foreshadowed, is it not? Harry and friends will somehow have such-and-such spell/potion mentioned/explained to them, and then it might end up playing another role in the series. But it seems to me the spells/potions that they have met so far are rather common. Animagi, for example, don't seem to be that big of a thing for the WW. We already know of six Animagi, and that's just out of the wizards Harry has come into contact with(so far). The Polyjuice Potion, also, doesn't seem to be all that huge. IIRC, Dumbledore didn't seem that shocked when he learned about Crouch/Moody using the Polyjuice Potion. But this Ritual IS a big thing(you now, seeing how it requires Wormtail's arm ), and who's to say it wasn't created by Voldemort himself(seeing as he is such a big fan of immortality)- that would make it very hard to foreshadow, as no one else would really know about such a potion even existing(if I am completely forgetting something mentioned about said Revival potion--i.e. it was created by somene, or Dumbledore had heard of it before, please forgive-- I don't have a copy of GoF handy). --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: "cindysphynx" wrote: > > I'm still rather puzzled. In GoF, the Dark Mark gets fired into the > > sky. We have no idea at the time what it is supposed to mean; it > > comes out of nowhere, IIRC. It is a very important plot point. JKR > > explains it to the reader *after* the whole scene in the forest. So > > that is another example where JKR just puts a magical concept out > > there and explains it for us later. > > I don't think it's quite the same thing. First of all, the "magical > concept" of the Dark Mark is pretty generic -- it's possible to use > magic to conjure pictures in the sky. I don't think this is so > radical, or so specific to the HP universe, that it requires special > foreshadowing. Nor is it important to the plot -- it's not like the > ability to conjure pictures in the sky becomes important later. The > importance of the Mark lies in its symbolic meaning and the > characters' reactions to it. Yes, but there had to be some sort of magic behind the making of the Dark Mark- you don't see Harry or Hermione or Ron or any other Hogwarts students just pointing their wands at the sky and conjuring up pictures, now do you? I believe that there is some (perhaps powerful) magic behind making the Dark Mark appear, which is probably why everyone thought it was so absurd when...was it Crouch or Bagman? I think Crouch... accused the Trio of making the Mark appear. Also, I like the way things sometimes pop up and then get explained afterwards-- makes it more suspenseful than already knowing what something is, I think. While reading about some new magic taking place and knowing nothing about it, you are left to wonder(like the Dark Mark incident for example); but like the Crouch/Moody mystery, you learn it was the Polyjuice Potion and all you could really do was slap your forehead and go "Ooooh, Polyjuice, nothing new". ~Aldrea From jmmears at comcast.net Wed May 22 03:06:53 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 03:06:53 -0000 Subject: From HPforGrownups - Draco as Darcy? (Was: Re: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective)] In-Reply-To: <20020516204746.18515.qmail@uwdvg023.cms.usa.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38979 It's late to be responding to some of Heidi's points in this thread, but I've been kept away by houseguests and family obligations, so I hope that it's not *too* late to address some of these arguments. > sariadotia at a... wrote (concerning a Draco/Herm ship): > > > > Ok, I honestly do not understand why so many people > > even consider this as a > > possible future relationship. Heidi wrote: > Um, because nothing has happened to date to rule it out? Because JKR's sowed > the seeds for a redemption for Draco, which would be a necessary precursor to > such a thing happening? Apart from my inability to see any "seeds" for Draco's redemption, wouldn't a future ship with Hermione require some major changes on her part? I've seen people on the list argue that to support a future romance between Ron and Hermione "ignores Hermione's feelings". For a Draco/Hermione ship to work out she'd have to manage to ignore 4 years worth of serious abuse and insult, turn her back on the best friends (only friends?) she's had at Hogwarts, and generally abandon her most dearly held principles (kindness, loyalty, etc). I see more hope for a Hermione/Hagrid ship, based on canon . Heidi wrote: I have no idea why you are > so scornful of fanfics, and clearly I am never going to be able to convince > you that they are a pleasent diversion, a way to explore the books in a medium > different from straight debate or the Theory Bay roleplaying that goes on here > on this list -but it's no less valid a medium of intellectual discource. > (http://zendom.diaryland.com/020404_18.html) But fanfics don't explore the books at all. They exist entirely separate from JKR's creations. The authors use the same character names and settings, but beyond that everything comes from the fanfic author's own imagination. I don't mean to be insulting to anyone who writes or enjoys fanfiction, and if I've hurt anyone's feelings by expressing my reservations, I'm truly sorry. Penny referred me to a post by LexiconSteve (can't find the number right now) where he expressed my feelings on fanfiction perfectly. I just don't think it actually *is* as valid a way of exploring the books as the discussions on this list because it it a narrative form. A fanfic requires that you buy into it's world on some emotional level in order for it to be entertaining. I've seen loads of posts from people who actually say that they have changed their opinions of situations and/or characters, based on fanfiction they've read. I find that disturbing. Heidi wrote: > I actually think I am a literal-minded reader, just one who reads between the > lines. I've seen the concept of "subtext" dissed in many other places as > regards the character and plot developments in the books, but JKR's given > subtextual hints throughout the books, and from one book to another, of > important characters (Arabella Figg, for one) and characterisations (Snape, > for another) that we haven't yet fully seen. Or look at the whole thread going > on right now about Neville. I don't think that being a thoughtful reader, as I > am, precludes also being literal-minded about the books - they can happily > co-exist. I agree that subtext exists in the books. However, isn't there some distinction between the "hints" we've been given that there's more to Snape than meets the eye, or the re-introduction of Mrs Figg in GoF, and the notion that a single taunting remark from Malfoy at the QWC indicates that he *may* have been issuing a kindly warning, instead? I guess to me, being a literal-minded reader means I have to have a little more to work with than that in order to consider possible alternative directions for plot/characterization. I don't expect anyone who reads or writes fanfiction to change their minds about it based on my problems with it, and it really wasn't my intention to do so. I just wanted to explain why I find it to be too subversive in it's relationship to canon for me personally to enjoy. Jo S. > ____________________________________________________________________ > This message was sent from my Palm wireless email account. From jmmears at comcast.net Wed May 22 03:44:51 2002 From: jmmears at comcast.net (serenadust) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 03:44:51 -0000 Subject: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective; Perspective in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: <015501c1fd4e$346cb360$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38980 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > Hi all -- > > Jo Serenadust, commenting on Heidi's theory of a Draco/Hermione romance possibility, said: > > <<<< ignoring 4 volumes of careful character development by JKR. I guess > I'm just too literal-minded a reader to manage this leap.>>>>>>> > > Hmmm.... so is this another case of "There's one way, and only one way, to interpret any given character in a work of literature?" No, not at all! I just thought that we were supposed to try to embrace the point of view of the author, as we are able to discern it. Some things JKR writes are more clear than others. I personally find her depiction of the relationship between Malfoy and Hermione pretty clear. Penny continued: We've had this debate before, and I believe it may predate your joining the group, Jo. Rather than re-hash everything that was said in the latest iteration of the debate, I thought I'd just give a link to a few of the messages that really addressed these issues before, as they were quite lengthy (this was April 2001): > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/16370 > (Lexicon Steve arguing that fanfic changes a reader's perception of JKR's characters and that fanfic writers are circumventing JKR's authorial intent (and therefore fanfic readers are being exposed to interpretative views that don't square with JKR's intentions)) > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/16381 > (my response, which, in short, counters that authorial intent is not fully discernible unless JKR unequivocally confirms her intent in a chat or interview or by making her notes public) > I do thank you Penny, for directing me to Steve's post. He does a much better job than I do in presenting the reasons for my reservations about fanfic. I'm thrilled to be in such distinguished company! Penny said: > > <<<< She's an author and doubtless would consider that there is more than one interpretation for everything in her books; there's even more than one path that she could have chosen > (having written myself, I can say that you sometimes weigh multiple valid courses of action but eventually must choose only one). Anyway, I'm completely opposed to the notion that there is only one JKR interpretation of these characters and books and I'm especially opposed to the notion that this one interpretation is discernible by people other than JKR herself.>>>> > > Authorial intent is tricky business IMHO. To say that Heidi is "ignoring" JKR's character development is basically equivalent to saying "Heidi, your interpretation is wrong and mine is correct." The whole point of this discussion list is further *discussion.* And, I might add, virtually everything we discuss here is speculation in some form. Except for the rare occasion when someone needs reminding of an indisputable purely factual matter (i.e. Harry and Dudley are first cousins), all we've done for the last 2.5 yrs is speculate. Whether the speculation takes the form of a straight narrative argument weighing the pros & cons of the proposition that Snape is a vampire, or is a TBAY post elaborating on the same topic or is a fanfic giving a backstory to Snape's vampirehood -- it's all speculation. It just takes various forms. What can I say? I find there to be a big difference between "discussion" and fanfic. I have no problem with having my perceptions of canon challenged by the discussions on this list. Fanfic IMO brings a whole new, subversive level of distortion to the characters in particular. They aren't JKR's Harry, Ron, Hermione, et al; they *can't* be. I wouldn't care so much if I hadn't read so many posts citing other author's versions of the characters in support of the posters perceptions of the canon characters. > Penny wrote: > It sounds as though you've had a really terrible experience with fanfic and that's too bad. There are a number of really great fics out there -- all ships, all genres (shipless & shipper-oriented). It's entirely possible that you could read a dozen or so badly- written or poorly-plotted fics and completely give up on the experience. Check out our Fanfic FAQ or FictionAlley though if you want to give it another whirl & want some recommendations. Sadly, I did read several truly putrid fanfics on the sub-literate level. I have, however, also read some of the one's that are recommended as the good adult-level fics, as well. I guess I began reading them to sort of fill the gap until the next book and with the mistaken impression that the authors would be trying to go where they really thought JKR would most likely go with her story. Boy, was I surprised. I finally stopped reading them because I found that they ranges from the bizarre to the just plain depressing. None of them captured, for me, the essence of the books I craved. I'm still a member of some of the groups, and look in from time to time but I never post because I'm so clearly out of step with everyone else on those lists. Believe it or not, the first time I read on this list that people actually thought that Rowling might put Harry and Hermione together romantically, I was slack-jawed in amazement. I'd never even considered the possibility (what a sweet,naive newbie, I was)! After reviewing the books, I still find the idea of such a pairing frankly unbelievable for a number of reasons I won't go into here. However, I'm no longer surprised by it, and enjoy reading the reasons people pose to support this idea even if I'm never convinced by them. I'm sorry I took so long to reply to this post. RL has been overwhelming lately (in a good way), and will continue to be for the next few weeks. I hope I haven't hurt the feelings of anyone who writes/enjoys fanfic. I have been impressed by the amazing amount of effort and obvious talent that goes into the better ones. It's just not for me. Jo S. > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Wed May 22 04:51:58 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 00:51:58 EDT Subject: TBAY: The Night The Jabberknoll Screamed Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38981 After a long and exhausting weekend at the Memory Charm Symposium, Debbie is back at work, her Featherboa, somewhat worse for the wear, draped over the back of her chair, her newly acquired paddle hanging on the wall, the hangover gone, and her outburst at the third session banished from memory. Her colleagues inquire as to the nature of the symposium ("Er, it was about Depreciation theories.") and fortified with coffee, Debbie peruses the latest mail and takes up her quill to jot down her thoughts in the margins, as Cindy has yet another new theory: > And the key to it all is the Jabberknoll. According to Fantastic > Beasts and Where To Find Them, p. 23. "Jobberknoll: "The Jobberknoll > (northern Europe and America) is a tiny blue, speckled bird which > eats small insects. It makes no sound until the moment of its death, > at which point it lets out a long scream made up of every sound it > has ever heard, regurgitated backwards. Jobberknoll > feathers are used in Truth Serums and Memory Potions." > Is it necessarily correct to assume that a Memory Potion is a memory enhancer? A Memory Charm is a memory eliminator. I think a good case can be made, based on the description of the Jabberknoll that its feathers are used for potions that hide memories and release them. After all, that's what happens to the Jabberknoll. It makes no sound, so it hides its memories within, then at death releases its memories, quite incoherently. In fact, that seems to be what the name means, as jabber is a synonym for talking incoherently and knoll is a synonym for knell, as in death knell. But either interpretation is reasonable. So I proceed to the story. > With that canon on the table and our FEATHERBOAs in our laps, here's > what I think happened the night the Longbottoms were tortured. [snip] > The Pensieve Four (the Lestranges, Crouch Jr. and Fourth Man) show > up and barge their way into the Longbottom home. Why don't the > Longbottoms flee? Who knows. Maybe they were asleep and the > Pensieve Four sneaked up on them. Maybe they were friendly with one > of the Pensieve Four (Fourth Man or Crouch Jr.). Take your pick. > > Now personally, I like to think that Crouch Jr., being young and > impressionable, is the key to how the Pensieve Four got the drop on > the Longbottoms. Sirius tells us that Crouch Jr. "was caught with a > group of Death Eaters who'd managed to talk their way out of > Azkaban." This suggests that the other three had been sent to Azkaban, but > Crouch Jr. had not. He was a neophyte to being an Evil > DE. Or he was totally innocent and had no idea *why* Mrs. Lestrange > was so interested in finding the Longbottom home, but he agreed to > help out. > I think the Lestranges talked their way out of being sent to Azkaban in the first place, as Avery and countless others did by the Imperius defense. (And this is the only interpretation if Avery is Fourth Man. He would never have gotten a second chance out of Azkaban.) I have to say, too, that I'm beginning to buy into the "Crouch was innocent" story, since canon implies that Crouch Jr. was only caught with the others. For Crouch Sr., though, even if his son was merely associating with DEs, it would probably be enough for him to put Jr. away for life, because of the damage to his career. > If Crouch Jr. > socializes with the future Minister of Magic, it isn't such a > stretch to think that he also knows the Longbottoms. > Well, I can definitely buy this. My scenario is the same, except that it involves Fourth Man. I rejected Barty Jr. only because I didn't think the professional/social relationship between the Crouches and Longbottoms would lead to social visits from the Crouch's 19 year old son; it would be simpler for Fourth Man to be a good family friend. But Crouch works, since the Longbottoms undoubtedly know him. > up, that's right. We have ourselves yet another Ambush! Crouch > Jr. set up Frank Longbottom! Crouch Jr. shows up on the doorstep, > Frank recognizes him immediately as Crouch Sr.'s terrific boy and > swings the door open. Oh yeah. That's what we need ? another > Ambush scenario! Before the Longbottoms can apparate away or escape > or do anything else, they've all been captured. > > On this point, Elkins had objected: > > "The four of you stand accused of capturing an Auror -- Frank > Longbottom -- and subjecting him to the Cruciatus Curse..." > > Yup. That's right. "Capturing." > > Now, you really don't call it "capturing" when somebody is assaulted > in his very own home, do you? I do think someone can be "captured" in their home. My dictionary says capture means to gain control by force. If they were caught elsewhere the correct word woul have been"abducted" because I doubt Frank was tortured right there on the street. > > Mrs. Lestrange, who is probably the ringleader based on her Take- > Charge Demeanor in the Pensieve, starts off with the Imperius > Curse. Now, there's nothing in canon that says anyone used the > Imperius Curse on the Longbottoms. But come now. The logical way > to get the information out of the Longbottoms is with the Imperius > Curse. It's fast, and it's a whole lot more quiet and easy on the > nerves than all that ear-splitting crying and screaming. > I agree here with James and Finwitch's objections to the idea that Imperius is a truth-telling device. IMO someone can be forced to talk, i.e. words can be put in the victim's mouth, but I don't think you can point your wand at someone, say "Imperio" and "tell the truth!" Crouch Jr. states, "I kept him alive, under the Imperius Curse. I wanted to be able to question him. . . . I also needed his hair to make the Polyjuice Potion." I read this sentence to mean that Crouch needed to keep Moody alive and that he used Imperius to control him and keep him from getting out of the trunk. I don't think this statement means that Crouch used Imperius to force the truth out of Moody. Instead, I think Crouch used Ennervate when he wanted to talk to Moody, and perhaps Veritaserum (he had access to Snape's storeroom) to get truthful answers when he needed them. Naama also asked: > Or, for that matter, why did Voldemort bother torturing Bertha? > Definitely an inconsistency in the story, I'd say. Imperius and the > Veritaserum, in my opinion, are very problematic in that sense (as is > the Time Turner). You can just solve so many things by just using > these things. E.g., if you want to know what happened at some point > in the past, why not use the Time Turner to get there? You could > arrive covered with an invisibility cloak, in order to avoid changing > the past. Why don't they use Veritaserum on every suspect DE? Etc. > I've asked the Veritaserum question before. The Time Turner is inefficient, I think, because you can't use it to jump back to a specific time in the past and jump back when you're done with it. You have to turn the Time Turner over x thousand times to go back and then you have to re-live that entire time hiding so as not to be seen. When do you eat? Where do you sleep? As for Imperius, I don't think it's a truth-telling device so much as an action-controlling device. > But the Imperius Curse doesn't work, does it? That's because Frank > and his wife have *no idea* where Voldemort is. > > Barb Purdom raised a similar point: > > >> The information that was being sought, as I understand it, was the >> whereabouts of Voldemort. Inasmuch as the Longbottoms probably >> didn't possess this information (why did anyone think they did? >> were they on the scene at Godric's Hollow soon after he tried to >> kill Harry and failed?) they couldn't very well give up what they >> didn't know. > Why wouldn't Frank have the information? I'm not sure why so many people assume the Longbottoms knew nothing about Voldemort's whereabouts. Dumbledore makes the following statement near the end of the Pensieve chapter: "Bertha Jorkins has vanished without a trace in the place where Voldemort was certainly known to be last." This indicates to me that there was ongoing activity after the fall of Voldemort to keep apprised of his whereabouts to prevent exactly the sort of Find and Revive expedition Lestrange & Co were planning. Frank Longbottom could certainly have been part of that effort. Maybe he had been away from home before the Crucio attack and everyone assumed he had been out investigating the whereabouts of Voldemort's spirit. All three descriptions of the Pensieve Four's capture and trial (Sirius, Dumbledore and Crouch Sr.'s statements in the Pensieve) are consistent with the notion that the objective was to find out Voldemort's whereabouts. > > If popular Frank the Auror knew Voldemort's whereabouts, Frank would go > finish off Voldemort himself. > No, I don't think he *could* finish him off. Isn't Voldemort immortal? He's already lost his body, it's just his spirit wandering around. Dumbledore states specifically at the end of PS/SS that "not being truly alive, he cannot be killed." In fact, I thought the point of the rebirthing was that it was an anti-baptism in which Voldemort regained his mortality. He'd lost his body at Godric's Hollow but he didn't lose his spirit because he had rendered himself essentially inhuman by his magical transformations. So it would be pointless to go off and try to kill him, but very wise to keep track of his whereabouts as much as possible. Unfortunately, after Fudge took over as MOM, the Ministry's efforts to keep track of Voldemort probably faded away. But Dumbledore seems to have tried to keep up. > > Anyway, Mrs. Lestrange . . . starts > hitting Frank with the Cruciatus Curse. Again and again and again, > he swears that he doesn't know where Voldemort is, and each time he > says this, he gets another Cruciatus blast. Mrs. Lestrange doesn't > believe a word Frank is saying, and the unspeakable torture just > goes on and on and on. Finally, Frank collapses into a wreck of a > wizard who doesn't even move or make a sound when Mrs. Lestrange > hits him with the Cruciatus Curses. Frank is Finished. > > [snip] Desperate, she turns to Frank's wife (which is really a > long shot anyway because Frank's wife is almost certainly just > Frank's wife and not an Auror). Mrs. Lestrange figures it is worth > a shot, on the off chance that Frank said something Important to his > wife. After a long while, a very long while, Mrs. Longbottom > succumbs and collapses on the floor with Frank. She, too, is > Finished. > This scenario exactly follows Crouch Sr.'s description of the crime in the Pensieve. Subject Frank to the curse, and when he doesn't talk, use it on his wife. But isn't there something odd about it? Why would they torture Mrs. Longbottom after Frank could no longer talk? And why, even if they were gibbering wrecks, would the perps leave them alive? They have no assurance that the Longbottoms' unfortunate states are permanent. So this tells me one of two things: either the MOM made up the charges against the Pensieve Four as best they could without enough evidence, or the scenario is missing a key fact, i.e. at the end of the Crucio segment, the Longbottoms were not insane and something else happened later to cause their insanity. (A careful review of canon indicates that Dumbledore, our sole source of information on the Longbottoms' condition, does not actually state that their conditions wer the result of the Cruciatus Curse.) That's one of the reasons I came up with those dark dark theories -- they attempt to explain why the Longbottoms were left there alive. I think they're Bangy, too, especially the more extreme ones. And if you combine the Memory Charmed Longbottoms with the MOM attempting to break through the charm in a desperate attempt to find and convict the attackers, you can account for the MOM identifying and finding the Pensieve Four. OTOH, as Naama suggested, it could just be a FLINT, as they should have started with Neville if he was there. Maybe JKR got the torture order wrong, just as with Priori Incantatem. > > Before you know it, owls are arriving at MoM carrying panicked > messages about the Dark Mark over the Longbottom's house. The > citizens are coming unhinged at the sight of the Dark Mark again. > Moody, the best of the Aurors, is dispatched to investigate. But > guess who else shows up at the Longbottoms' house? > > Snape. [snips the best part of the story, about the argument and the > Jobberknoll] > nape makes the Memory Potion, which causes Neville to be able to > communicate exactly what happened. But Snape was right about the > side effects ? Neville`s memory and magical ability are in fact > compromised. Neville's memory of the torture has been permanently > enhanced, and he hears the screams of his parents to this day. > I have to pay attention to any scenario that puts Snape and Moody at the Longbottoms together cleaning up the aftermath on the fateful day. I really love the story. I do. But I still don't think Neville is currently under a Reverse Memory Charm. Cindy tried to persuade: > The Egg's screeching sounds to Neville just like the death scream of > the Jobberknoll. No wonder poor Neville likens it to the sound of > someone being tortured! The Jobberknoll death rattle is what Neville > is reacting to in that scene in GoF, not the actual cries of his > parents, which would be *plenty* comprehensible. > But wouldn't his association of the Jobberknoll death rattle with torture indicate that in fact he doesn't remember what Cruciatus actually sounds like? So, if Neville heard the Cruciatus, the memory seems to have been erased. And on the Dementor argument: > Harry and Ginny react more than Neville to the dementor on the train > because they both survived near-death experiences at the hands of > Voldemort, whereas Neville merely witnessed an atrocity. > He "merely" witnessed an atrocity? He hears his parents scream. Harry hears his Mum scream. They are different? No, can't buy the idea that Neville is presently memory charmed. But, but . . . maybe Snape is feeling guilty, and he knows what the Memory Potion has done to poor little toddler Neville. So he does his own Memory Charm on Neville. There you have it: The Memory Potion Paddleboat meets Memory Charm Paddleboat, they lock together, back to back and pedal poor Neville into big loopy forgetful circles. Cindy, you will not like this. You will think it's not Bangy. But it is. Every melted cauldron is a Bang. Every time Snape takes it out on Neville because he is a constant reminder of the fact that Snape is not a Charms master -- the charm was too big, and Neville is lost in forgetfulness. So maybe if Snape torments Neville a little bit more, he will coax him out of that charm. Actually, you know, maybe that's not Bangy either. Well, that's why I still like the Frank the Double Agent and Evil! Gran scenarios. Nobody will ever claim they're not Bangy. Debbie, still rather awed that Elkins liked her portfolio of Memory Charm theories so much [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Wed May 22 04:55:14 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 00:55:14 EDT Subject: Trio's Auror Skills (WAS: Hermione: Panic Attacks & Tears?) Message-ID: <11c.117acb2b.2a1c7eb2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38982 Penny, on the Trio's Auror skills: > I still say it's a red flag and that Ron is falling behind the other two. > Then again, based on what we know so far about Aurors and what they do, I'd > agree with Crouch-as-Moody's assessments: Harry and Hermione do both employ > a mix of logic and emotional gut reactions. Ron employs strictly emotional > gut reactions, which are almost always wrong (thus far). Ron has his > moments in the resolution of each book (except POA) .... but he's not been > very key to actually *solving* the problems so far other than getting > I have to agree with everything Pippin said in response to Penny's comments, and add my own views on how each member of the Trio solves problems: Hermione is, as Penny says, a logical thinker, but she applies her logic skills primarily to working out abstract problems, such as Snape's potions in PS/SS, analyzing the theory behind summoning charms in GoF. She analyzes Crouch Sr.'s disappearance from the Hogwarts grounds in the same dispassionate manner. When it comes to people she knows, however, she relies on her feelings and her values. Thus, for example, in PS/SS she assumes Snape can't be trying to steal the stone because he's a professor (she's correct, but her reasoning is wrong), in CoS her schoolgirl crush on Lockhart and/or status as a professor prevents her from realizing he's a fraud. In PoA, in the Crookshanks affair, she ignored all the evidence and argued that Ron's problem was that he was prejudiced against her cat. Several times in GoF, she falls back on her value system in assessing how others would behave in certain circumstances. For example, she objects to Ron's suggestions that the twins might do something illegal, or that Percy might turn in a family member, and is horrified by the idea (confirmed by Sirius) that Crouch did the same to his son based on her assumption that they *wouldn't* do such a thing. She does this with Crouch Sr. only moments after believing him capable of conjuring the Dark Mark based solely on his treatment of Winky. I have tended to think that her projection of her values (particularly her respect for rules, office and authority) on others in assessing how they might act in certain situations, while admirable, may be the weak link in her armor that make her susceptible to misjudgment down the road. And I also think the limitations this imposes on her thinking could be a serious liability as an Auror. As Pippin points out, I think she would be better off in the department of mysteries where she can use her analytical skills. On to Ron. Penny said, in a later post: Well, I can't comment on how much logic is involved in chess, but more than once, Ron has commented, "Hush up ... give me some time to think about this" when he's playing chess. So, I'm not so sure that Ron is any more quick on his feet than Hermione. As for the keys puzzle, all Ron did was examine the lock & suggest what shape key they were looking for. I'm not so sure that's logic either; not in my book. Me: Ron, IMO, is a very different kind of thinker from Hermione, but I don't think he is illogical or applies 'emotional gut reactions' to his decisions. I think the difference is in the basis from which each draws conclusions -- she uses an abstract logic, while he bases his assessments completely on the factual evidence he has before him (and in some cases his own knowledge of the WW), and reaches the most logical conclusion in light of those facts. That's what he did with the key puzzle. This is the same skill that he employs with great success in chess -- he looks at the situation based on the facts before him and acts accordingly. Many of his conclusions are wrong not because he thinks illogically but because he doesn't have all the facts before him. So, for example, in the Crookshanks incident, based on the evidence before him Crookshanks appears quite guilty (and Harry agrees with Ron). In another example, his assessments of Percy and the twins are based on his own personal observations. For example, Percy loves rules, stays too much at the office, and shuts himself up in his room when the rest of the family are doing things together, seemingly similar to Sirius' assessment of Crouch Sr.; Ron hears the twins talking endlessly about getting money for their joke shop and then overhears them arguing about a letter that George thinks is blackmail. He also demonstrates skepticism, for example toward Snape -- he does not simply accept that Snape is not evil based on the explanations to date, and toward Dumbledore -- Ron correctly concludes that Dumbledore can be fooled by a clever dark wizard. This suggests to me that he doesn't always accept the obvious answers. Pippin: > I am not sure why Ron's intuitiveness should be thought such a > handicap to an Auror. Ron's off the cuff suggestions are > sometimes useless but they aren't usually harmful. Sometimes > they do suggest the solution, as when he takes Harry's bugging > remark literally. That's thinking outside the box, IMO. > Also, throwing out off-the-wall speculation, as Ron does, is IMO a good thing. (Isn't that what some of us do over at T-BAY? ) And it's not necessarily "emotional" thinking. Obviously not all of his ideas will pan out. But some of them do (such as his conclusion that Moaning Myrtle was the basilisk's first victim) and his willingness to entertain them -- as Pippin says, "think outside the box" -- is exceptionally useful to an Auror. Because, as we've seen, in the WW the obvious answers are likely to be wrong. That's not to say Ron doesn't ever make emotional judgments. At the Yule Ball, that's exactly what he does. But that's part of my theory on Ron's suppression of his desires for himself. It gets him into trouble sometimes, when his jealousy surfaces, because he lets his jealousy control him. To be a really good Auror, he'd have to get better control of these tendencies. Though, in the last half of GoF, I did see some improvement there. His reaction in the Niffler scene to the realization that he had not paid Harry for the Omnioculars was very muted and quickly over. And the fact that he asked a lot of questions throughout the book, such as at the WWC after the Dark Mark was seen, and when they visited Sirius, suggests to me that he's using his brains a bit more than before for purposes other than working out chess strategies. Harry, IMO, is somewhere in between Ron's and Hermione's way of thinking. He has the advantage sometimes in that he's more introspective than either of the others. Thus, he gets to listen to their arguments and often quietly reaches his own conclusions based on all of the arguments they have made in front of him. I think he has good Auror skills as well. Penny: > But, the fact is: all we know so far about the qualification for an Auror, > though admittedly from a source who may not be entirely reliable, is that > their minds need to work a certain way. > I doubt we can, or are intended to, rely on Crouch/Moody for a list of Auror qualifications. But we do know that an Auror's job description includes catching Dark wizards; in chess the objective is to capture the opposing king. So I do think chess skills would be very useful to an Auror. Debbie, who somehow knew that Penny's positive response to her theory on Ron's apparent lack of ambition wasn't a request for admission to C.R.A.B. < grins again> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Wed May 22 05:08:11 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 01:08:11 EDT Subject: Arthur Weasley and Rules (WAS Rulebreaking (Official Philip Nel Question #6) Message-ID: <87.1bcf73ed.2a1c81bb@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 38983 I've been meaning to reply to David's comments on Arthur Weasley and rulebreaking since I first read it a week ago Monday, but I seem to have got sidetracked. David said: > Arthur is interesting because his rule-breaking is hard to classify in this > scheme, even allowing for the grey areas. He charms the Ford Anglia > (though he claims that is technically not illegal), he wangles perks like > the World Cup tickets (it is implied that he abetted a minor miscarriage of > justice over Otto Bagman's lawnmower) and the Floo connection to the > Dursleys, and he gets Moody (as he believes) out of trouble with wider > Ministry connivance. Some of this looks like corruption: if people are in > the inner circle, they can act above minor laws. It is not clear whether > he considers whether he is breaking the spirit of the law in his > misdemeanours. > > [snips problems with these actions] > > I think the way I see it is that Arthur just is the person that he is: JKR > accepts him on this basis, and we are to like him, and be aware that what > he does might be wrong, but we don't need to make a judgement. > [snip] > I think it is possible that for the type of rule-breaking that Arthur > Weasley engages in, there is *no* clear message. Is it possible that JKR > is experimenting with that type of person, and is not sure herself whether > their rule-breaking is ultimately justifiable or not. She can control the > consequences of his behaviour to make it go one way or the other, but, not > knowing herself, she may just choose to leave it ambiguous. None of us > know the answer: why should she, and why should she make one up? > I see Arthur as an illustration of just how easy it is for even the Good Guys (and I think Arthur unquestionably is and will stay on the side of Good) to get caught on the "slippery slope" of rulebreaking. I think he works hard to stay within his own reading of legality. Arthur's definition is a bit elastic, though its not clear whether the extent of corruption in the Ministry -- or maybe just the general wizarding attitude toward government service -- is such that even the "good" employees come to think it's acceptable (or perhaps become compelled as a matter of job security) to bend the rules as personal favors for other MOM officials. It's interesting that Arthur, who seems to be very principled about not setting aside his concern for Muggles to get ahead at the Ministry, is caught up in this culture of personal favors without apparently noticing anything amiss. It's not altogether clear to me why he stays at the Ministry under these circumstances. (No wonder Percy has a reform agenda.) But I think JKR clearly shows the negative consequences of Arthur's stretching of the rules, in that his actions encourage rulebreaking on a grander scale by his children. For example, he enchants the Ford Anglia (possibly legal), but then his sons use it to pick up Harry at the Dursleys (illegal, but with good motivation). Arthur can't come down hard on his sons because he caused the rulebreaking; indeed, he doesn't even want to. Emboldened by this encouragement, Ron and Harry fly the car again (rash and illegal). So he's aided and abetted two substantial rule violations by his children. And in GoF, I'm sure whatever he smoothed over for Bagman's brother, for which he received the World Cup tickets, was a little thing. But it sets him up later: when Bagman solicits bets (whose illegality is unclear, though his dealings with the goblins sound downright gangsterish), Arthur feels obligated to place a small bet with Bagman. This seems ok (raise your hand if you've never ever placed a small bet in an office pool, etc), but Fred and George follow his example and bet all their savings. Arthur can't use any moral grounds to stop them because he's just placed a bet himself. My word to describe Arthur's actions here is "enabler." Arthur may know how to negotiate the slippery slope without straying outside his elastic view of what's right. However, his children, being children, don't have that kind of judgment, and they (particularly the twins) IMO often push the elastic too far. And they don't get called to the mat on their behavior. While the message is subtle, and undoubtedly is lost on many, I think JKR doesn't really approve of all this stretching of the rules. Every good character seems to have an Achilles heel, and this seems to be Arthur's. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed May 22 12:34:32 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 08:34:32 -0400 Subject: Schoolbooks and foreshadowing Message-ID: <106B742A.789D9BCC.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38984 I was thinking about this debate, and it occurred to me that whatever we think about the precise status of the schoolbooks (and part of the problem is that the idea of 'canon' is not as simple as one might at first suppose), I am fairly certain that they do contain foreshadowing. I have two reasons for this. Firstly, quite frankly, the woman is incapable of *not* foreshadowing. Every time she opens her mouth she drops hints about what might happen. If someone seizes on a detail in an interview she doesn't say "Goodness, I'd forgotten all about that!", she says "I like attentive readers; I can't say more right now but that bit's very important." Wink wink. She is the wind-up mistress extraordinaire, the ne plus ultra of the tenterhooks. So I doubt she would resist the temptation to just slip something in that she knows will be significant in hindsight - in fact, in the case of Kneazles, I think we may have confirmation that this is so from an interview, though I couldn't turn it up at Aberforth's Goat's engine. My second reason is more subjective (what? *more* subjective? wasn't that bad enough?). I think that some parts of FB in particular just read as if they are significant. I can't explain it really. Parts feel as if she was struggling to fill the space, others just *feel* as if there is more going on. All those footnotes about centaurs and vampires. The description of the Lethifold. And, Cindy, you are missing a treat. Yes QTTA does have some duller bits, but it has the dialogue between Crapaud and Grenouille, it has a hilarious foreword by Dumbledore (so it can't be canon, right, because Dumbledore wrote it, not JKR? ;-P ) including significant (well, OK, not very significant) character development of Madam Pince, and it reveals that the snitch was invented at Godric's Hollow. It introduces us to Dangerous Dai Llewellyn. It is endorsed by both Gilderoy Lockhart and Rita Skeeter. What more could you want? 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 cindysphynx at comcast.net Wed May 22 13:29:57 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:29:57 -0000 Subject: Trio's Auror Skills (WAS: Hermione: Panic Attacks & Tears?) In-Reply-To: <11c.117acb2b.2a1c7eb2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38985 > Penny: > > But, the fact is: all we know so far about the qualification for an Auror, > > though admittedly from a source who may not be entirely reliable, is that > > their minds need to work a certain way. Debbie: > I doubt we can, or are intended to, rely on Crouch/Moody for a list of Auror > qualifications. But we do know that an Auror's job description includes > catching Dark wizards; in chess the objective is to capture the opposing > king. So I do think chess skills would be very useful to an Auror. I don't play chess, mostly because it requires logical thinking and anticipating the reactions of others and, uh, math, I think. ;-) But I think Debbie is on the right track in figuring out what makes a good Auror. We only know a few things about Aurors because we only know one Auror. And we only know a few things about Real Moody: 1. He is not sympathetic to the idea of cutting deals with traitors. 2. He is quite paranoid and trusts no one. 3. Aurors have to be willing to kill, although Moody is more reluctant than most. 4. Aurors have to be willing to use Unforgivable Curses. 5. He doesn't think much of, er, idiots like Bagman. 6. To quote Sirius, "Tough." If we apply these characteristics to the trio, then I think Hermione might need some career counseling to consider another position. Hermione has proven herself the most squeamish of the trio -- she alone turned away when Pettigrew was about to be executed. Hermione seems very trusting -- she viewed Lockhart favorably and refused to even consider that Snape might be up to no good. Hermione thought it improper that Fake Moody was using Imperius on the students. Ron, though. Ron was suspcious of Snape and Lockhart. He didn't turn away from Pettigrew or object to Fake Moody's lesson plan. I think Fake Moody was wrong -- Ron would make a better Auror than Hermione. It's all good though. Hermione would make a great middle manager at the Magical Law Enforcement division. You know, setting strategy, shuffling papers, writing regulations, supervising Percy and Ginny, that sort of thing. ;-) Cindy (who knows these are fighting words) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed May 22 14:23:28 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:23:28 -0000 Subject: Revival Potion foreshadow (Was: Re: Are The Schoolbooks Canon?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38986 Aldrea wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > The Revival potion is another matter. Personally, I find it the most > unsatisfying > element in all four books precisely because there is no > foreshadowing, no > mention > of dark revival rituals (except for a few cryptic comments from > Wormtail at the > beginning of the book.) However, one mess up, however big, in four > books still > does not disprove the fact that JKR has a strong *tendancy* to lay her > foundations > well ahead of time. Hey! I never wrote that! In fact is opposed to my opwn views! :-p So there! Now, you've got me all worked up and I'm going to heve to express my views in this subject! (Again!) (Why the h*** am I shouting?!) ;-) > Um...I don't quite see the big deal with this. Does JKR have to > foreshadow every major spell/potion? I don't really even see how she > could have foreshadowed this Ritual, as Harry had never had a chance > to encounter such a thing before. That's the basic way the > potions/spells are foreshadowed, is it not? Harry and friends will > somehow have such-and-such spell/potion mentioned/explained to them, > and then it might end up playing another role in the series. But it > seems to me the spells/potions that they have met so far are rather > common. Animagi, for example, don't seem to be that big of a thing > for the WW. We already know of six Animagi, and that's just out of > the wizards Harry has come into contact with(so far). The Polyjuice > Potion, also, doesn't seem to be all that huge. IIRC, Dumbledore > didn't seem that shocked when he learned about Crouch/Moody using the > Polyjuice Potion. But this Ritual IS a big thing(you now, seeing how > it requires Wormtail's arm ), and who's to say it wasn't created > by Voldemort himself(seeing as he is such a big fan of immortality)- > that would make it very hard to foreshadow, as no one else would > really know about such a potion even existing(if I am completely > forgetting something mentioned about said Revival potion--i.e. it was > created by somene, or Dumbledore had heard of it before, please > forgive-- I don't have a copy of GoF handy). > > ~Aldrea The fact is that all of us knew that there was a second way of making LV return. Dumbledore says so at the end of PS, when Harry asks if, gone the stone, so are V's chances of returning. Since we knew it was coming, it counts as foreshadowed. It's true that we didn't know the exact way it would be done (through a potion), but that is unnecesary and doesn't disqualify the foreshadowing. In fact, we had plenty of clues: it involved any wizard (but Voldy wanted Harry... such an Evil Overlord fixation...), and any DE would give his right hand, and the fact that they're in the old Riddle house should have given us clues, also, if we had been more centered (and knew what JKR was thinking, of course). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, who hopes Aldrea doesn't take to seriously his initial rant; he's just semi-joking. Also who hopes that people would be more careful at quoting, since he gets in enough trouble just by what he says, without having to be carry other people's ideas From heidit at netbox.com Wed May 22 14:26:43 2002 From: heidit at netbox.com (heiditandy) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 14:26:43 -0000 Subject: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective; Perspective in the Potterverse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38987 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "serenadust" wrote: > > I just thought that we were supposed to try to > embrace the point of view of the author, as we are able to discern > it. Do you mean "we the listies when we discuss things"? Or just "we the readers when we read things?" And... well... in an open canon like HP is, how can we presume to see or know her point of view, especially when the canon we've seen so far is chock-full of foreshadowing and red herrings? I think the salient phrase in the above is "as we are able to discern it." Do you really think that any two people discern her point of view in the same way, every time? > I > personally find her depiction of the relationship between Malfoy and > Hermione pretty clear. You "personally" - exactly. Does this mean that you realise that you have no more idea of her point of view than I do? And that you acknowledge that your view of the depiction of that relationship is just that - your view, "personally"? > I hope I haven't hurt the feelings of anyone who > writes/enjoys fanfic. I have been impressed by the amazing amount > of effort and obvious talent that goes into the better ones. It's > just not for me. Actually, you kinda did - I can deal with harsh reviews, but I always get on the defensive when someone makes the presumption that my admittedly creative theories are without canon support, or that they're somehow completely generated by the imaginations of others. But then again, there've been discussions on this list - November, 2000 actually, about how uncreative Bloomsbury & Scholastic *and JKR* were in the Wand Order issue, in comparison to the creative theories some of us had come up with here. But her version is definitive, and we will be fine with it. And it'll be the same way when books 5, 6 and 7 come out. She'll come up with things that this list... that every fanfic writer... never considered or debated or thought up. And some things we did (there were fics involving foreign schools before GoF, for example). And it'll be wonderful and there will be new fanfics spinning out from *that* canon. Yay, imho. And, on a wholly personal note, I was - and still am - troubled by your feeling that fanfic is subversive. It's one of those situations where the term is just so *loaded* that it can't be read as anything but a scathing indictment - and I think you actually meant it as such. However, I also don't think that there's anything wrong with a subversive reading of an open canon. You can predict or analyse anything you want because *we just don't know* what the "real" world of Harry Potter is going to contain in the future. We have no flipping clue. So, how is one *conclusion* that's based on canon any more subversive than any other? > Fanfic IMO brings a whole new, subversive level of distortion to the > characters in particular. They aren't JKR's Harry, Ron, Hermione, > et al; they *can't* be. I wouldn't care so much if I hadn't read so > many posts citing other author's versions of the characters in > support of the posters perceptions of the canon characters. Erm. Where did you read such posts? On *this* list? I've looked back over posts from the past month or so which referenced fanfic, and I've found a few posts where people say that a certain argument has been articulated in a fanfic, but I really haven't seen "so many posts" on this list citing fanfic authors' versions of the characters in support of that poster's perceptions of the canon characters. Well, other than a few posts by fanfic authors themselves, who have noted in posts here that we've articulated various of our arguments in our fanfics. Jo also wrote: > I do thank you Penny, for directing me to Steve's post. He does a > much better job than I do in presenting the reasons for my > reservations about fanfic. I'm thrilled to be in such distinguished > company! But he doesn't say the same things you do at all. In fact, it is quite the opposite. He said, <> You, on the other hand, say, <> and <> Steve, OTOH, considers it a legitimate way of enjoying the books. You don't. You're entitled to make that determination for yourself, of course, but given that Arthur Levine, her publisher, has said that "It's the highest compliment you could possibly pay to a work of imaginative fiction that the reader would be so involved and feel so much a part of the world of a book that they would want to go there and stretch their imagination," (http://www.usatoday.com/life/enter/books/book738.htm) and JKR herself has said, "I have read some [fanfic], and I've been very flattered to see how absorbed people are in the world..." (http://www.angelfire.com/mi3/cookarama/yahoolintoct00pt1.html), I truly think that you have no authorial perspective to support your argument that fanfic is a de facto subversion of authorial intent. Where do we go from here? I have no idea. All I can really say is, the next time you read a post from me that makes an argument that you didn't think of yourself, or even one that you personally see no canon support for, as long as I give some canon basis for my argument, I truly hope you don't come to the conclusion that the argument I make is derived from, based out of, concluded as a result of or otherwise wholly influenced by my reading fanfiction. And I hope you grant that courtesy to everyone else on this list. You don't have to read it, but you don't have to make snap judgments about those who do. Heidi Tandy From editor at texas.net Wed May 22 15:31:29 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:31:29 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective; Perspective in the Potterverse References: Message-ID: <005801c201a5$d4527300$8a7763d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 38988 Leaping into the fray.... Serenadust said > I do thank you Penny, for directing me to Steve's post. He does a > much better job than I do in presenting the reasons for my > reservations about fanfic. I'm thrilled to be in such distinguished > company! As I recall, Steve and I were the original "purists" the first time this debate sprang up. I authored the "do you read fanfic" poll (which I believe has closed, since I didn't know how to keep it open, but is still there if you'd like to see the responses). We are evidently the beloved odd lunatic fringe. : D To the best of my recollection, Steve and I were on precisely the same page about fanfiction. That being--we had no problem with it. *We* just don't want to read it. For many people, it is the ultimate expression of enjoyment of an author, that they want to join in--they find the characters, setting, interactions, etc., so appealing that the natural extension is to set those characters in scenarios of their own crafting. Neither Steve nor I had any problem with that; we think creativity is fabulous and (I at least) am a bit envious of those who can write so well. Hell, I'm envious of those TBAY-scenario writers! But fanfic. I don't read it because I know that personally, after a bit, I will not be able to clearly distinguish the character impressions I got from the books, from the character impressions I got from someone's fanfiction. This is simply me, the way I process things. I would *love* to read fanfiction, but I don't want to until after the series is completed. I want my first complete "take" on the books and the characters to be JKR's. Note the use of the word "personally" up there. Plenty of people *can* distinguish the source of character impressions, or don't care as much as I do about where they come from. There had also been discussion in the past, as the Movie loomed ever closer, about whether that would alter our perceptions of the characters just as much or more. For that very reason, several listmembers stated their intention to not see the movie. For my part, I have no problem with the movie, because I do not read either visually or aurally (with rare exceptions). By that, I mean I do not actually form pictures in my head--I don't "see" characters, and unless I concentrate, I don't have a geographic impression of setting, either. Nor do I "hear" voices; I can get intonation, but except for rare occasions, I just read the words. I can't explain this any better, since from other commentary I've gotten the impression that most everyone else *does* do all this. The best I can think of is that I read very swiftly, and it's as if the information bypasses the sensory input and is deposited directly into the intellectual. I have a ferocious memory for detail. ANYWAY, the movie gave me no problems with distinguishing where the character impressions come from, because if I'm recalling a clear visual, it's going to have been from the movie, not of my own making. However, I can completely understand those who didn't/don't want to see the movie. This without believing the movie is subversive or dangerous to canon. But wait! I hear you cry. JKR had input into the movie, so it's not in the same category as fanfiction! Ah, but it is closer to fanfiction than canon--she had input, but she had input into fanfiction as well, probably much more. All the rest is interpretation. In fact, we are such visual creatures, the movie has probably done more to shape the view of the wizarding world than all the fanfiction written--writing, of necessity, starts with nothing and builds. A movie, again by its nature, starts with a complete visual and then must winnow. All the thousands of teeny details left unsaid in the books--what color wallpaper at the Dursley's? what age mix of people in Diagon Alley? what decorations are on the walls of the Great Hall? etc.--must be answered to make a movie, and enter The Consciousness. > What can I say? I find there to be a big difference > between "discussion" and fanfic. Good heavens, have you read any of the massively fun TBAY threads? They bridge the gap nicely and in a way difficult to avoid, the way they and their characters interact, share Kool-Aid, and heave cannons about. In general, there is a distinction which can be made, and sometimes it takes careful reading to make it, but usually it's pretty clear. > I have no problem with having my > perceptions of canon challenged by the discussions on this list. > Fanfic IMO brings a whole new, subversive level of distortion to the > characters in particular. They aren't JKR's Harry, Ron, Hermione, > et al; they *can't* be. I wouldn't care so much if I hadn't read so > many posts citing other author's versions of the characters in > support of the posters perceptions of the canon characters. You sound like there is a Vast Fanfic Conspiracy out there, scheming to get you ensnared in its evil threads. Fanfic people are loons, I'll give you that (waves merrily at all the fanfic loons), but there is a simple answer. Don't read fanfic. Don't read posts that are fanfic discussions. When it seems unclear, ask. As one who has been a purist from the day I found the list, and has read no serious fanfic, this is not all *that* difficult. Also a bit of clarification--you fanfic loons, correct me if I'm wrong--but you are technically correct in saying that these are not JKR's Harry, Ron, Hermione, etc. They aren't; they are what JKR's characters *could* be. The projection is generally based on a canon foundation (of varying strength), but fanfictions are just that--projections. They aren't trying to *be* JKR's characters so much as they are trying to explore other, possible facets of JKR's characters. Did I get that right, fanfic loons? In some instances, the different interpretations found in fanfic have enabled someone to view the canon character in a different light. Is this what you find subversive? New viewpoints? JKR has a near-genius for writing almost nothing that is set in stone, character- or motivation-wise. For instance, I defy you to find me anything, any one thing, that Snape has done or said, for which the motive is crystal clear and indisputable. Which is one reason the fanfic loons love him so--he's so *interpretable*! And Snape is the extreme, but this is true of many of the major characters. JKR has given us enough to make it interesting, but not so much that we know everything (or even most, I suspect), which is why speculation is so fun. Speculation in canon is discussion; speculation in writing is fanfiction. So, say I forget my principles and read a superb fanfic about Snape being a vampire. Say further that it causes me to decide that this canon-based vampire theory, far from being the heap of rubbish I had formerly thought it to be, is not only valid but worth further exploration. Have I been subverted, or have I been challenged? Has my interpretation been distorted, or simply expanded? Basically, I think there is room on the list for purists and for fanfic loons. But I don't think those of us who are Saving Ourselves For JKR need to condemn those whose lifestyle permits them to read or write outside of series-lock. --Amanda PrimaGeist P.S. -- Snape is *not* a vampire, it *is* a heap of rubbish! [The preceding P.S. has been a personal interpretation of canon, and is not meant to be taken as a binding interpretation of canon text for anyone other than the author of this statement and anyone else with an ounce of sense. Other personal interpretations of canon are possible, I suppose, and any difference of personal opinion with the foregoing *better* interpretation will not be prosecuted in a court of law, but will be argued wtih vociferously if I have time. Message sold by weight, not volume. Semantic content may have settled in shipping. Do not remove tag under penalty of law. Wash hands after using. Slippery when wet. Do not use in shower.] From huntleyl at mssm.org Wed May 22 16:01:30 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 12:01:30 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Trio's Auror Skills (WAS: Hermione: Panic Attacks & Tears?) References: <11c.117acb2b.2a1c7eb2@aol.com> Message-ID: <018001c201a9$f05b20c0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 38989 Pippin said: <<<>>>> Hum..well, I'm sort of bristling at that suggestion. To me, Snape's actions during the whole teeth scene are just about *the* most reprehensible in Potterverse. Having your teeth grow like that has got to be downright *terrifying*. Certainly worth a little whimpering. What's more, I'm sure it was extremely *painful*. If you've ever had braces, I'm sure you are aware that any change in the positioning of your teeth can hurt *allot*. I've always had a pretty high tolerance for pain, but I can remember being near tears after having one of my molars moved a mere millimeter by a hellish little rubber device called a spacer. IMO, Hermione's behavior was completely understandable, if not admirable. I can't say what I'd do under similar circumstance...probably something violent and very stupid. Pippin: <<<<<>>>>>>> Personally, I think that JKR intentionally portrays Ron as extremely *illogically*. I mean, think about it. Ron doesn't "trust his intuition" when facing problems -- he merely acts/thinks rashly, often influenced only by his dislikes/likes and prejudices. To call his way of facing problems "intuition", is, IMO, an insult to the word. Try immature, rash, and unfair. Notice it's always *Hermione* who's willing to give people a second chance and is willing to believe that people she doesn't like can do good things, and vice versa. And while Hermione is so often criticized for being "heartless" and "insensitive", isn't it always Ron who's the first to condemn others for trivial reasons? And who is more likely to take care of Harry/Hagrid/whomever when he's upset? Ron? I don't think so. Ron is too busy chasing his own emotions to give a hoot about other people's. <<<<<>>>>> Personally, the bugging thing is more a case of ignorance about the Muggle world than anything else...trying to call it "thinking outside the box" is stretching it a bit, I think. "Thinking outside the box" implies that one is consciously exploring different angles of a problem, which Ron wasn't doing. Hermione in this circumstance, however, *was*. She took Ron's ignorant comment and used it to examine the dilemma in a new light. *That's* thinking outside the box. Also, I disagree that Ron's suggestions aren't usually harmful. Often, he makes unfair and/or prejudiced assumptions about people/circumstances. When the Trio tries to overcome an obstacle, it's usually his ideas that lead them astray for a good portion of the story. Furthermore, prejudice is pretty much always harmful. Definitely not good for thinking outside the box. <<<>>> Did she hesitate to curse Snape in the Shrieking Shack? She was distraught afterwards, yes. She did not, however, let her personal tendency to be uber-respectful towards authority figures get in the way of what *needed to be done*. That's Hermione all the way. Yes, she wants to be a good kid and follow the rules whenever feasible. When push comes to shove, however, she does what needs to be done to further the right cause. No questions asked, full steam ahead. Debbie said: >She analyzes Crouch Sr.'s disappearance from the >Hogwarts grounds in the same dispassionate manner. Yes, while Ron spews out ridiculous, impossible theories based on his own personal dislikes (of Krum, in this instance). ^_~ Debbie: >in CoS her schoolgirl crush on Lockhart >and/or status as a professor prevents her from >realizing he's a fraud. Actually, I pretty much think Hermione had admitted to herself (if not other people) that Lockhart was a phony at least by the pixie incident. At the very least, she is aware that he's not exactly the sharpest tool in shed by the time she blatantly manipulates him into signing her a note for the restricted section of the library. IMO, she recognizes the fact that she has a physical crush on the man, even if he's got an undesirable personality. Furthermore, she never lets that crush hamper her convictions or her plans to get things done. Just as a side note...it's not uncommon for intellectuals to have an unfortunate attraction to admittedly stupid, but gorgeous people. Human beings tend to want people who have the traits they lack. For instance, a weak person tends to want a powerful one, etc. It's not particularly healthy, but it's pretty normal. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Wed May 22 16:44:23 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 16:44:23 -0000 Subject: Fanfic and differences of opinion In-Reply-To: <005801c201a5$d4527300$8a7763d1@texas.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38990 Amanda and Heidi are quite right. My point of view is that fanfic is wonderful and exciting and well worth the time and effort it takes to write and to read. I, however, do not read fanfic. That is entirely for personal reasons, mostly having to do with the fact that when I write something for the Lexicon I do not want non-canon information creeping in. Simple as that. But I do have something more to say. I have spent a horrible eight months fighting against a small group of people who think they are entitled to force others to believe the way they do. I lost. It wasn't because I don't know how to argue a point or that I didn't do my research. And it wasn't because I was wrong and they were right. It's simply because they have the power in this situation and when all was said and done, they pulled rank. Now I'm wondering if they might be able to knock me down personally--that's still up in the air. Since they have officially declared Harry Potter to be Evil, my website suddenly becomes an endorsement of Evil. They have the power. You do the math. Now here on the list we are discussing another matter, one where we have differences of opinion. Wonderful. That's what makes conversations/discussions so much fun. But reading some of what people have written makes me pretty darn nervous, probably just because I'm overly sensitive. Please don't let the differences turn into trying to make everyone agree with one point of view. I have discovered just how horrible that kind of approach can be. In this case, each approach is perfectly valid and acceptable. That's the truth of it. Go ahead and make your choice and explain why. But don't expect everyone else to slap their forehead and say, "You know, you're right, I'll change my mind." By the way, I did read the first few chapters of an absolutely delightful fanfic about Draco written by Heidi and I loved every word of it. I plan to finish it this summer, when I'm free to think the way I please. Steve battered but not defeated yet From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed May 22 17:46:57 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 17:46:57 -0000 Subject: Ron's reactions, was Hermione: Panic attacks In-Reply-To: <021501c20121$d115f1a0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38991 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: >>>> Deliberate cruelty, just for the sake of cruelty, to a student is not something any teacher should engage in, IMHO. Besides, "bring her back to her senses?" How so? "Let's see, my teeth are hanging down past my chin & continuing to grow ... oh yeah, now that I'm calmer, I can see that yes, indeed, my teeth *are* hanging down past my chin & continuing to grow. Yes, I feel better about it all now." No, I think Hermione was quite well aware of the reality of the situation. <<<< It wasn't for the sake of cruelty, IMO, it was to get her to stop being hysterical. Should a competent wizard wax hysterical over a body part swelling out of control? I don't think so and more to the point, Arthur Weasley doesn't either. GoF chapter 4, "Not to worry I can sort [this] out!...it's a simple process...it's only an Engorgement Charm--at least, I think it is..." > > Pippin again: > > <<<<< puzzle, but he can act in a hurry because he trusts his intuition. > Hermione needs *time* to think everything out. When she has to > deal with a situation she's not prepared for in advance, she > tends to panic -- as with Boggart McGonagall, to give another > example.>>>>>>>> Penny: > Well, I can't comment on how much logic is involved in chess, but more than once, Ron has commented, "Hush up ... give me some time to think about this" when he's playing chess.<<< More than once? I only remember the scene in PS/SS....canon please? Penny: >>>> So, I'm not so sure that Ron is any more quick on his feet than Hermione. As for the keys puzzle, all Ron did was examine the lock & suggest what shape key they were looking for. I'm not so sure that's logic either; not in my book. Can you give me some other examples where Ron acts quickly and it is actually the right action, the right answer, etc.? I can't think of a single instance ... but maybe I'm just not being fair to Ron. <<<< The lock is the *only* clue to the keys puzzle. If Quirrel hadn't conveniently damaged one of the keys already, it would have been vital. Ron doesn't say anything about the shape per se; he suggests the material and the style of the key should match the lock. Quite logical, IMO. I admit Ron's thinking is often distorted by jealousy, as Hermione's is by her deference to authority. His suspicions are often directed at those he has reason to dislike, and we are meant to think there's no more to his occasional right answers than a lucky guess. However, I think he is actually processing information subconsciously, something that Hermione, a conscious reasoner and linear thinker, hasn't learned to appreciate. This leads her, and the reader, to discount connections that Ron has made subconsciously. An alert reader can pick up on the clues along with Ron, if one doesn't fall into the trap of thinking that Ron is just being jealous. In fact, very often Ron is on the right track and Hermione distracts him. The following list of times when Ron was on the right track or reacted swiftly and correctly in an emergency is off the top of my head. LOONS are welcome to find more instances. CoS -- Ron comes up with the plan to rescue Harry from the Dursleys. -- "He *says* he's done." Ron is the first to realize that Lockhart isn't what he seems. Maybe anybody can make a mistake, as Hermione says, but Lockhart's distinctions (Order of Merlin Third Class and Honorary Member of the Dark Arts Defense League), aren't very impressive compared to all he's claimed to accomplish. ::Pippin smiles, remembering that she actually caught this one:: --"Maybe he killed Myrtle." Why *was* the diary found in Moaning Myrtle's bathroom? A good investigator wouldn't assume it was coincidence, especially after the link between the diary and the Chamber was revealed. --Despite being terrified by the spiders, Ron thinks to rescue Fang. --Ron catches Lockhart's wand and disposes of it when Harry performs Expelliarmus. PoA --"That cat's got it in for Scabbers." Perfectly true and it ought to raise a question. Why, with all the easily available prey in the castle, has Crookshanks fixated on Ron's rat? GoF -- In the conference with Fake!Moody, Ron's suggestions "So he did Disapparate!", "someone could've...pulled him on to a broom," while far-fetched, focus on an anomaly from which Moody quickly diverts attention. Moody's told them Crouch didn't appear on the Map, but how could Crouch Sr, in his debilitated state, have managed to leave the grounds so quickly? GoF -- Ron: "we could've tried to get more stuff out of Winky about Crouch!" Winky has *told* us she's keeping secrets, but Hermione discounted Ron's interest. Penny: >>>> I think we're losing sight of the reason that Crouch-as-Moody suggested that both Harry and Hermione would make good Aurors is because their minds "work the right way." He apparently didn't think that Ron's mind works the same way, and I don't think it does. <<< Agreed. Ron relies more on subconscious reasoning more than the other two. He and Hermione compare to Bones and Spock from Star Trek. Bones' conclusions are based on observation, education and experience just as Spock's are, but Bones feels the answer instead of deducing it consciously. They're both good scientists. I think Ron has more of what it takes to be an Auror, but I'm not discounting Hermione as an investigator, far from it. ::Pippin swats at fan fic plot bunny about grown-up R/H as investigators ala Anne Perry's Thomas and Charlotte Pitt :: An interesting question though: what kind of thinker is Crouch Jr. himself? I tend to think he's intutive. He is like an actor performing an extended improv--he can't possibly have thought out every situation in advance. He has to feel the part. Pippin From sedate_fangirl at hotmail.com Wed May 22 14:21:44 2002 From: sedate_fangirl at hotmail.com (Sarah Tilson) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 10:21:44 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Evil!Percy Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38992 Quoth Moirae: ><<<situation. He was also looking at a book called, "Prefects Who Gained >Power". He is the unlikeliest to go evil also.>>>>>> Erm...this has probably already been brought up, but I'm banking on Percy going the opposite way. Psycho-good, if you will, which could perhaps be worse. Personally, I like being suspicious of Ginny, if any of the Weasley clan is going to go to the Dark Side. The idea appeals to me, for some reason ^_^ Sarah "I have measured out my life in coffee spoons." -- T.S. Eliot, "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock." _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com From pennylin at swbell.net Wed May 22 18:22:14 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 13:22:14 -0500 Subject: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective; Perspective in the Potterverse References: Message-ID: <004201c201bd$98fbca00$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 38993 Hi -- Well, Amanda, Heidi & Steve have all weighed in with articulate positions, and I'm not sure how much I'll *add* to the discussion, but here goes -- > Jo Serenadust, commenting on Heidi's theory of a Draco/Hermione romance possibility, said: > > <<<< ignoring 4 volumes of careful character development by JKR. I guess I'm just too literal-minded a reader to manage this leap.>>>>>>> > I replied: > Hmmm.... so is this another case of "There's one way, and only one way, to interpret any given character in a work of literature?">>> Jo Serenadust responds with: <<>>>>>> Me again: I think the part that I objected to initially, Jo, was your phrasing "ignoring JKR's careful character development." The use of the word "ignore" suggests that there is one way to view Draco & Hermione's relationship and that way is *your* way. The word "careful" also suggests that JKR carefully & clearly structured a given relationship and that Heidi is being dense if she doesn't see it the same way you do. I still stand by my position that it is impossible to say that you are reading a work with authorial intent in mind, unless you've got firm unequivocal written evidence of authorial intent from the author. Why is your version of authorial intent correct and anything contrary is just wrong? How can you know? The only way we'd know for sure is to sit down with JKR & give the 2 (or more) interpretations of a given scene, event, character or whatever & say "So, whadda ya think? Who's right?" My guess is that she'd say that noone was absolutely 100% right. I said: <<<<<<<> Authorial intent is tricky business IMHO. The whole point of this discussion list is further *discussion.* And, I might add, virtually everything we discuss here is speculation in some form. Except for the rare occasion when someone needs reminding of an indisputable purely factual matter (i.e. Harry and Dudley are first cousins), all we've done for the last 2.5 yrs is speculate. Whether the speculation takes the form of a straight narrative argument weighing the pros & cons of the proposition that Snape is a vampire, or is a TBAY post elaborating on the same topic or is a fanfic giving a backstory to Snape's vampirehood -- it's all speculation. It just takes various forms.>>>>>>>>>>> Jo Serenadust replied: <<<<<<<<>>>>>>> Isn't this just form over substance? Let's continue with the Snape as a Vampire thing, since Amanda used that example too. Is there substantively any difference at all between the following? (a) Poster A, who writes a really long post citing all the canon evidence that suggests that Snape is a vampire and refuting canon points that suggest he might not be (using sort of an "academic" straight narrative format); (b) Poster B, who has written a fanfic exploring how Snape became a Vampire, using the same canon evidence that Poster A marshalls to his side in his narrative post; or (c) Poster C, who takes Poster A's points and manipulates the material into what we're calling a TBAY post Obviously, these are 3 different *forms* of writing. They can all be classed as persuasive writing perhaps -- the objective of all 3 posters is to convince other readers that Snape *could* be a vampire. Same objective -- just 3 different ways of arriving at the same place. Jo serenadust: <<>>>>> I agree with Heidi that use of the word subversive is unnecessarily loaded. I also would ask what you mean by the last sentence. Are you suggesting that if Poster A has decided that she thinks Draco is possibly redeemable, her opinion is only valid & should only be cited on this list if she arrived there by (a) reading the books, or (b) listening to someone on this list expound narratively about why Draco is a candidate for redemption? Your arguments have also made it sound as though you don't think, in the above example, that Poster A could *possibly* have arrived at her conclusion by reading the books. IMO, it doesn't matter *how* someone's perceptions are changed. If a person reads the books and only reads the books, then that person is entitled to say that his view is entirely his own. But, if that person reads JKR chats or interviews, reads book reviews or literary criticism, participates in any online or real-time discussion groups, discusses the books with friends or family, reads or writes fanfic or otherwise becomes aware of the "fandom," then that person's views are likely to change as a result of this interaction with others, even in small ways. There are lots of things about the characterization, plots and imagery that I would probably not have thought up on my own (based on my initial read of the books). But, just because someone else saw something that I didn't and brought my attention to it via an online discussion group or a fanfic or a chat in real life over a cup of coffee, then how is that I can't validly change my mind from my initial perceptions? Amanda Geist said: <<<<<<>>> As with everything else in your post on this topic, Amanda, I agree completely. Yes, fanfic is a means of exploring "back stories" as well as other facets of a character that are "off the page" in canon or extrapolating out what a character might be like in the future, etc. Amanda Geist again: <<<<<<>>>>> Exactly! Discussions or fanfics can both challenge a reader to go back & re-read and think about a new possible spin. In many cases, I re-read and think "Nah .... I still don't buy [Theory X] but nice try." But sometimes, a discussion *or* a fanfic can cause me to re-read the books & suddenly I think "Aha! Yes ... I can see this. I can definitely see this." Shifting gears slightly, Jo said: <<<<<<>>>>>>>>> Well, I may have related this tidbit before, but I do have access to someone who's read the books but never participated in any aspect of the fandom. My sister had not read any interviews or chats or participated in any discussions, even with me, until last summer sometime (or maybe summer 2000). She's still, to my knowledge, only had this one discussion with me (she likes the books ....but wouldn't have the obsession level at all to discuss them with anyone). So, I mentioned something about the "R/H" shipping position. She was literally slack-jawed in amazement. Her: "But ... but.... that's crazy. Hermione likes Harry." So, just goes to show that for every person who's just sure that everyone must be seeing things the way they do, there's someone else coming to the exact opposite conclusion (but still astonished that anyone would think anything differently than they do). :--) As Steve wisely notes: <<<<<<<>>>>>>> Steve, this should be our new group motto. It's what I've always advocated with the list: "live and let live." Penny (who is sorry to hear that Steve is having HP-related problems still ....) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cindysphynx at comcast.net Wed May 22 19:36:43 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:36:43 -0000 Subject: TBAY: The Night The Jabberknoll Screamed (LONG) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38994 Following the intellectually stimulating (if somewhat raucous) Memory Charm Symposium, Cindy sets up a booth in the Canon Museum to recruit a crew -- any crew -- for the Reverse Memory Charm paddleboat. She has several substantial canonballs for the perusal of the few passers-by. Unfortunately, most theorists walk quickly by, averting their eyes. Oh, this has *not* been easy. Not one single soul has stepped forward to volunteer to paddle, let alone help push the theory into the Bay. But wait! Someone seems to be lingering at Cindy's booth. It is Debbie -- a famous and well-regarded DEPRECIATION specialist! Cindy tries not to look *too* excited. Maybe, just maybe, Debbie is warming to the Reverse Memory Charm Jobberknoll Variant With Optional Snape And Moody. Maybe, just maybe, if Cindy can manage to be *nice* just this once, Debbie will sign on for a tour of duty -- or at least help Cindy do a few laps around the Bay. Forcing a smile, Cindy asks Debbie if she understands Jobberknolls. Debbie, being a quick study, nods curtly and recites Fantastic Beasts, p. 23 from memory: >"Jobberknoll: "The Jobberknoll (northern Europe and America) is a >tiny blue, speckled bird which eats small insects. It makes no >sound until the moment of its death, at which point it lets out a >long scream made up of every sound it has ever heard, regurgitated >backwards. Jobberknoll feathers are used in Truth Serums and Memory >Potions." Yes, that Debbie is as sharp as a tack. She even did her homework, determining the probable origin of "Jobberknoll": >In fact, that seems to be what the name means, as jabber is a >synonym for talking incoherently and knoll is a synonym for knell, >as in death knell. Cindy decides that the time is right to try to recruit Debbie to her cause. With a First Mate like Debbie, people will flock to the Jobberknoll variant in *droves*. Maybe Cindy can *reason* with Debbie. Brute force has always worked better than reason, Cindy thought bitterly, but it might be worth a shot, just one last desperate shot . . . *********************** Debbie: > Is it necessarily correct to assume that a Memory Potion is a >memory enhancer? A Memory Charm is a memory eliminator. I think a >good case can be made, based on the description of the Jabberknoll >that its feathers are used for potions that hide memories and >release them. Ah, but that is why JKR's description of the Jobberknoll is so *cool*. She doesn't tell us exactly what a Memory Potion is, and it could easily go either way -- eliminating memories or enhancing them. But, thank goodness for Reverse Memory Charm Neville, she tells us that the feathers can be used for Truth Serums -- and the only Truth Serum we've seen in action is Veritaserum, which causes someone to recall something and reveal it against their will on demand. So . . . logically, the feathers ought to have the same effect in the Memory Potion -- causing someone to recall something and reveal it against their will. Now, I'll admit that you'd have me if JKR hadn't added that bit about Truth Serum. But doesn't it seem that she is deliberately trying to link Memory Potion with Truth Serum? Also, why would anyone bother with a Memory Potion (gathering ingredients, brewing it, feeding it to the victim) when they can just hurl a Memory Charm at them and be done with it? Debbie: > I think the Lestranges talked their way out of being sent to >Azkaban in the first place, as Avery and countless others did by >the Imperius defense. Oh, I don't know about this. I mean, Sirius is pretty clear: Crouch Jr. "was caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd managed to talk their way out of Azkaban." Sirius didn't say "was caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd managed to talk their way out of *going* to Azkaban" or "talk their way out of trouble." Given how little we have to go on, shouldn't we take Sirius at his word here and decide that Crouch Jr. was the only one of the Pensieve Four who hadn't landed in Azkaban? Debbie: >(And this is the only interpretation if Avery is Fourth Man. He >would never have gotten a second chance out of Azkaban.) Oh dear. I must kick this objection over to Elkins. Fourth Man is her baby. I know she has a "Double Worm" Fourth Man variant out there somewhere, but I really couldn't do it justice. There's also the "FIE Avery Acquittal Timeline Dodge" scenario, but I don't remember that one very well either. Hey, wait! Are you trying to distract me, Debbie? Well, it isn't going to work. ;-) Debbie: >I have to say, too, that I'm beginning to buy into the "Crouch was >innocent" story, since canon implies that Crouch Jr. was only >caught with the others. Uh oh. There's that wobbly definition of "Innocence" again. The Innocence definition that lets Guilty-As-Sin Avery or Crouch Jr. claim they were only in the wrong place at the wrong time. I say that the "Innocence" arguments require us to believe that Crouch Jr. took Mrs. Lestrange to Frank's house and left without ever knowing what was happening. If Crouch Jr. saw what was going on and did not assist Frank, he's every bit as guilty as Mrs. Lestrange, I say. I wrote: > Mrs. Lestrange, who is probably the ringleader based on her Take- > Charge Demeanor in the Pensieve, starts off with the Imperius > Curse. Debbie replied: > I agree here with James and Finwitch's objections to the idea that >Imperius is a truth-telling device. IMO someone can be forced to >talk, i.e. words can be put in the victim's mouth, but I don't >think you can point your wand at someone, say "Imperio" and "tell >the truth!" Crouch Jr. states, "I kept him >alive, under the Imperius Curse. I wanted to be able to question >him. . . . " I read this sentence to mean that Crouch needed >to keep Moody alive and that he used Imperius to control him and >keep him from getting out of the trunk. I don't think this > statement means that Crouch used Imperius to force the truth out >of Moody. Instead, I think Crouch used Ennervate when he wanted to >talk to Moody, and perhaps Veritaserum (he had access to Snape's >storeroom) to get truthful answers when he needed them. ****************** Cindy eyes the box of Yellow Flags that Elkins brought to the Symposium, particularly the sweaty one on top. Oh, how she dearly would love to toss a flag into the air at the idea that Crouch Jr. used Veritaserum on Moody. But then Cindy remembers that she vowed to be *nice*. Cindy *hates* being nice. Being nice is no fun at all. ***************** JKR is quite specific about what exactly Crouch Jr. did, and there is no mention of Veritaserum. Crouch Jr. even tells us exactly what he stole from Snape -- boomslang skin. Besides, Snape has a very small amount of Veritaserum, and it is supposedly strictly controlled. I doubt he leaves it lying about unguarded. Also, why would Crouch Jr. use Imperius just to *control* real Moody? Real Moody can be controlled with Stun or with that Full Body Bind curse or even Impedimenta. The reason to use Imperius, IMHO, is to force Moody to talk. The only way to avoid the conclusion that Crouch Jr. used Imperius to question real Moody is to believe that Moody voluntarily told Crouch Jr. all he needed to know. I rather doubt that. Hold on . . . I feel a mini-speculative backstory variant coming on for the people who don't like the idea that Mrs. Lestrange used the Imperius Curse on Frank. See, I don't have a lot of canon for this bit, but it is so tempting and compelling and inclusive, that I have to try it out on Debbie. Here goes . . . It's quite possible that Mrs. Lestrange and her husband were caught before Voldemort fell and sent to Azkaban (as I suggest above). And guess who I think might have arrested them. Popular Frank Longbottom, that's who! This would address a few objections that Debbie and others have made. Some people aren't happy with the idea that Mrs. Lestrange used Imperius on Frank before she tortured him. But why would she *not* use Imperius on Frank, particularly given that it is fast, easy and quiet? The answer is that she would go straight to Cruciatus if she had a *major beef* with Frank, perhaps because he sent her to Azkaban in the first place. That's right! We have Vindictive!Mrs. Lestrange, who sought Frank out partly to find Voldemort (or, at least, that's what she told Crouch Jr. and Fourth Man) but partly to avenge her own arrest and imprisonment due to Frank. So maybe it would make more sense to use Imperius. Or torture Mrs. Longbottom first. Or torture Neville. But Vindictive!Mrs. Lestrange can't be bothered with that. She is going to make Frank *pay* for what he did. Oh, my FEATHERBOAS really like that idea! > Naama also asked: > > > Or, for that matter, why did Voldemort bother torturing Bertha? > > Definitely an inconsistency in the story, I'd say. I'd say the reason Voldemort tortured Bertha is because he didn't have any Veritaserum and because she had a Memory Charm. Imperius (as I understand it) wouldn't have worked on Bertha because of the Memory Charm. Even the Imperius Curse can't make someone remember something they don't remember or know something they don't know, right? Debbie: > I'm not sure why so many >people assume the Longbottoms knew nothing about Voldemort's >whereabouts. Dumbledore makes the following statement near the end >of the Pensieve chapter: "Bertha Jorkins has vanished without a >trace in the place where Voldemort was certainly known to be >last." Yes, but Dumbledore says this in GoF. By then, Quirrell has explained where he hooked up with Voldemort -- Albania. Fourteen years earlier, when the Longbottoms were tortured, I see no reason to think that Frank knew where Voldemort was -- particularly if Voldemort was but a noxious gas at that point. Debbie: >All three descriptions of the Pensieve Four's capture > and trial (Sirius, Dumbledore and Crouch Sr.'s statements in the >Pensieve) are consistent with the notion that the objective was to >find out Voldemort's whereabouts. Oh, I don't doubt that MoM was looking. I just think MoM didn't know where Voldemort was and Frank Longbottom certainly didn't know. And if Frank did know, does anyone really think he would resist torture to the point of being driven insane rather than reveal the information? Debbie: >And why, even if they were gibbering wrecks, would the perps leave >them alive? You know, I've checked my notes of the Symposium, and I *still* haven't heard a compelling answer to this question. Maybe they were so damaged that they appeared to be dead? Vindictive!Mrs. Lestrange would answer by saying that death was *too good* for Frank. I mean, Lupin tells us that having your soul sucked out is worse than death. So maybe wizard culture prizes the conscious being to the point that it is a greater insult to leave someone alive without their soul/sanity than to kill them outright? Ooooh, that sounded kinda deep! Was that deep? ;-) Debbie (making a pitch for an alternative theory): >And if you combine the Memory Charmed Longbottoms with the MOM > attempting to break through the charm in a desperate attempt to >find and convict the attackers, you can account for the MOM >identifying and finding the Pensieve Four. Yes . . . but what about Neville? I think I drifted off during that part of the Symposium. Are you proposing that MoM tortured the Longbottoms to break through a Memory Charm that the perps placed on the Longbottoms rather than just killing them outright? Er, I may need some clarification there? Debbie (back to Reverse Memory Charm Neville with Jobberknoll Variant): >Cindy tried to persuade: > The Egg's screeching sounds to Neville just like the death scream >of the Jobberknoll. Debbie asked: > But wouldn't his association of the Jobberknoll death rattle with >torture indicate that in fact he doesn't remember what Cruciatus >actually sounds like? Oh, no. Neville knows *exactly* what the torture of his parents sounds like. He also knows what the Jobberknoll death rattle sounds like. The Egg sounds like the latter, not the former. But as the death rattle *was* a backward version of the Longbottoms' screams, the Egg did remind Neville of the torture, but indirectly so. Debbie: >So, if Neville heard the Cruciatus, the memory seems to have been > erased. Oh, no. He heard the Cruciatus the first time, and he still hears it. Had he not had his memory enhanced, he would have forgotten it by now. Now if he heard the torture and his memory was *erased*, then why on earth does he liken it to the torture -- a torture he doesn't remember? Cindy (noting that Elkins wasn't the only one who liked Debbie's portfolio of Memory Charm theories so much) *************************** For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% 20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From finwitch at yahoo.com Wed May 22 18:17:08 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 18:17:08 -0000 Subject: Fanfic and differences of opinion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38995 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "hp_lexicon" wrote: > Amanda and Heidi are quite right. My point of view is that fanfic is > wonderful and exciting and well worth the time and effort it takes > to write and to read. I, however, do not read fanfic. That is > entirely for personal reasons, mostly having to do with the fact > that when I write something for the Lexicon I do not want non-canon > information creeping in. Simple as that. I can understand that - I myself read it occasionally, and get another reader's view of how things *could* be, if someone would have chosen differently. I have my own imaginings about i.e. Harry living with Sirius instead of Dursleys (from the night, or from another point in Harry's life) that are in some ways different to those I read in fanfics of others-- but I still enjoy them. After the Series is finished, yes-- I think it *will* be even more enjoyable. > But I do have something more to say. I have spent a horrible eight > months fighting against a small group of people who think they are > entitled to force others to believe the way they do. I lost. It > wasn't because I don't know how to argue a point or that I didn't do > my research. And it wasn't because I was wrong and they were right. > It's simply because they have the power in this situation and when > all was said and done, they pulled rank. Now I'm wondering if they > might be able to knock me down personally--that's still up in the > air. Since they have officially declared Harry Potter to be Evil, my > website suddenly becomes an endorsement of Evil. They have the > power. You do the math. Yeah-- That's the sort of reason why I figure that obedience is no virtue. After seeing the movie version of Dead Poet's Society in TV - well, let's just say it made me think about matters. So that's for RL. In Potterverse-- well, Imperius is Unforgivable, and the most *evil* person calls obedience a virtue and uses *torture* to "teach" it... right after we've seen Wormtail kill Cedric for no reason but an order. Or Krum torturing Cedrid under Imperius? It's just house- elves and the nasty/evil/erratic people who consider obedience as a virtue... I saw Human Rights as themes in Potter-books before I heard that Rowling considers Jessica Mitford, a human rights activist, as her heroine. As an addition, I'd never heard of Jessica Mitford before *that*, but Human Rights is something Harry Potter strongly supports. I was in a baby-name website that gives meanings for names - Harry means army-power. Suits well for our army-power for Human Rights. As Shakespeare put it: "Is it more noble to suffer of the arrows of cuel destiny or to raise arms against the sea of sorrows?"... Well, Harry's definately raising arms. What kind of people think that defending Human Rights is Evil? Hope that helps, -- Finwitch From rachelrenee1 at yahoo.com Wed May 22 20:17:57 2002 From: rachelrenee1 at yahoo.com (rachelrenee1) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 20:17:57 -0000 Subject: Wand components. Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38996 We seem to know quite a bit about most of the main character's wand components; even some of the more minor major characters. (I assume that is what you would call characters like James and Lily.) But there are a few that I know we don't know much about. Dumbledore, Sirius, Lupin, and Hermione being some of the most curious exceptions. We know a bit about the wood, length, core, or attriubtes of most other characters. Any ideas on what might be in some of these wands? I have actually heard some people say they have heard JKR say what was in Hermione's wand. Has anyone seen that transcript? Just curious. Rachel From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed May 22 20:45:19 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 20:45:19 -0000 Subject: Wand components. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38997 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "rachelrenee1" wrote: > We seem to know quite a bit about most of the main character's wand > components; even some of the more minor major characters. (I assume > that is what you would call characters like James and Lily.) But > there are a few that I know we don't know much about. Dumbledore, > Sirius, Lupin, and Hermione being some of the most curious > exceptions. Does Sirius even own a wand currently? He had to use other people's in PoA. Hagrid's wand was broken when he was expelled from Hogwarts, so I would expect Sirius' would've been broken when he was send to Azkaban. And it's not like he can just walk into Ollivander's and pick up a new one, is it? I would definitely love to know about the other characters you mention, as well as Snape and Draco. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Wed May 22 20:55:59 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 20:55:59 -0000 Subject: We'll Lurk Until We Get Him (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38998 Rossini once wrote a cat duet: http://boychoir.free.fr/chansons/duochats.html So here's my dog and cat duet: We'll Lurk Until We Get Him (from PoA) (To the tune of Gershwin's Nice Work If You Can Get It) Dedicated to Steve Vander (B)Ark THE SCENE: The grounds of Hogwarts, late one evening. Enter PADFOOT, accompanied by his new ally CROOKSHANKS PADFOOT: A hound who only lives for seeking vengeance Looks for comrades who are every bit as intense CROOKSHANKS: Likewise felines who are quite smart Can all recognize canines who are pure of heart PADFOOT: The fact is, he's done many crimes I've a catalog of And catching rats is just what cats and dogs love CROOKSHANKS: Join with me, a pet who is Kneazle-y For the best path of all is straight through Weasley .. Prowling long past midnight With a probing eye PADFOOT: We'll lurk until we get him Pete Pettigrew, the rat `Magi CROOKSHANKS: Now he's faked his demise And they're all blaming me PADFOOT: We'll work to stop his disguise And earn their blame with certainty Just imagine such scum Selling friends to Voldemort CROOKSHANKS: With passwords it's much fun We will get to even the score PADFOOT: Hunting while I'm hunted CROOKSHANKS: For dementors alert BOTH: In murk we're going to find him And when we find him How he's going to hurt! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From ellaenchanted87 at yahoo.com Wed May 22 20:33:00 2002 From: ellaenchanted87 at yahoo.com (ellaenchanted87) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 20:33:00 -0000 Subject: Ron's Wand Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 38999 As I'm fairly new here I'm not sure if this is a topic you've covered here before, but it suddenly occured to me that, according to the "rules" Ms. Rowling has set up about the world of wizards, Ron should not have been able to inherit his wand from one of his older siblings (from which one, I'm not sure as I haven't got the book here in front of me). When Harry was buying his wand at Ollivander's, Mr. Ollivander himself told him that "the wand chooses the wizard," and not the other way around. How, then, was Ron able to manage with that old hand-me- down wand of his? (I suppose one could argue that Ron WASN'T in fact able to use it properly, and that this might be the cause of some of the "mishaps" that he experienced in his first several years at Hogwarts, such as the belching-up-slugs incident, but I'm not sure I agree with that.) Another theory I considered for a short time was that since Ron is a blood relative of whomever he inherited the wand from, that's why he could get it to work. Has anyone got any other ideas? Sincerely, Ella :) From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Wed May 22 22:23:14 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:23:14 -0000 Subject: Theory Bay - What is going on? - I'm Leaving LOLLIPOPS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39000 Well, after two weeks or so away, Eileen comes back, thinking that the very interesting discussions about Neville and memory charms must have quieted down. She is contemplating a long, comfy post on the idea of sacrifice in regards to the whole discussion. Before she begins, however, she notices lights in the Theory Museum. It is night and the place should be locked up.... Intrigued, and uncowed by the knowledge that she is following in the footsteps of Frank Bryce, she heads up to the Museum. Along the way, she passes the beach, where she sees the Fourth Man Hovercraft parked, and more frighteningly, even the BIG BANG destroyer. The crews are gone. Even Avery is gone. Worse, the paddles are gone. Eileen begins to be a little frightened. She tiptoes into the Theory Museum by the backdoor. Then she sees a sign, "MC Syposium - Downstairs - Follow the Arrows." Downstairs is a sight to behold. There is no-one there, but the place is strewn with crackers, cheese whiz, Kool-aid... and wait, black- olive flavoured Kool-aid? Having had it knocked into her head from a very young age that she must carry on the proud tradition of her maternal family's obsession with olives (they give each other olive products for birthdays), she pours herself a glass, and begins to - slowly - sip it. Upstairs, she can hear faint jabberings. Whoever was here in the building does not seem to have left. Then, she picks up a pamphlet? A Memory Charm Symposium? And she missed it? Good grief. Fortunately, she notices a small little bird hanging around the premises. A Jabberknoll. What luck! With the ruthlessness of the Viking whose name bedecks her email address, she strides over and strangles the poor little thing. Its feathers will make a nice addition to her FEATHERBOA, but she must now concentrate on the sounds of the Symposium flowing backwards from the Jabberknoll's mouth. In the process, she misses some things. She does not have enough time to inquire into who Stoned!Harry is, and why he was finally beheaded. She only slightly begins to comprehend the parallel universes mentioned by certain delegates. And did someone really suggest that Avery was the Fourth Man who was Rita Skeeter who was really the Weasley's cousin who was Uncle Vernon? No? Well, it's difficult to follow those backwards jabberings, sometimes. But, she is good at following things backwards, on the whole, and learns more about the Memory Charm than she ever wanted to know. Even having understood all those posts, her mind is spinning. Will she ever be able to decide whether Fudge was framing Crouch Sr., or the bad aurors were torturing Frank, or whether Evil!Frank was torturing his wife and then got turned on, or whether Avery was baking Frank brownies, or Barty Jr. was boasting of his marks, or Gran was sleeping with Lucius Malfoy, or Algie was spying on Gran, or Snape was in love with Neville's mother... Well, I think it's quite obvious that Snape was in love with Neville's mother. In fact, I'd like to announce that I am .... errr.... leaving the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS. No, not because Elkins has been hypnotizing me about Neville's mother and Snape. Not because it's stupid or silly. It's just that you can't have two major characters in love with Lily Potter. That's redundant. It's silly. And, well, it's obvious from Canon that there was another who loved Lily from afar. No, not you, Avery. Yes, I know you were in her year. And you probably did admire those green eyes, and that red hair, but you were studying to be a DE at the time (don't deny it) and she was a Gryffindor and a muggle-born at that. So, you could start cleaning up, while I further explore the theme. Don't look at me that way, please. Now, I see two figures in the shadows. Could you come forward? I know who you are. You've been trailing us a long time, seeking to kidnap Avery from us whom we rightfully stole from you. Two canonical death- eaters sent against HPFGU by Voldemort himself. Welcome Mr. Lucius Malfoy and Mr. Peter Pettigrew. Lucius, my slippery friend, did you suppose you could hide from me? But, my quarrel is not with you. You'd best be upstairs, defending your honour against rumours of your torrid affair with Gran Longbottom. Well, Peter. We meet again. Did you really think you could postpone this moment forever? Did you really think you could mislead us with stories of Severus's undying passion for Lily? It was you who started that story, wasn't it? Do you want to know, Peter, when I began to be suspicious? It was the whole tEWWW EWWW tEWW be trEWWW affair. It seemed out of character for Snape and Voldemort. And, yet, it seemed like a good plot twist. And, then, someone mentioned that it was like something else in a obscure fantasy book, about a dark lord and small of stature hero. Except there it involved a man named Wormtongue. Come now, you remember. Saruman promised Wormtongue that, if he would betray his friends, his king, and his country, he would have as a reward.... You remember, Wormtail. Why did Voldemort offer to spare Lily? Peter: That's not true! What has that Sirius Black been telling you? He's a madman. He's out to get me because he... Mr. Pettigrew, I've read Prisoner of Azkaban. I've also read Goblet of Fire. I know more of your post-1981 behaviour than Mr. Black does, I assure you. And... well, you couldn't look him in his eyes, could you? You could bind him to the stone, cut him, stand by while Voldemort tormented him, but you just couldn't look into those green eyes. That won't work. If you memory charm me, Cindy will be down in a second with a Memory Potions, Elkins will be applying Cruciatus, the rest will be pouring Veritaserum down my throat, and putting me under Imperius. They might even time-travel to revisit our conversation. Whatever the correct answer to our memory charm speculations, you can be sure that you'll be found out. Avada Kedavra, Peter? Isn't that a little extreme? Deep down inside you, do you really have all it takes to do that? You do, eh? Oh, damnit! Aren't you at all remorseful? Look, let's make a bargain, mutually beneficial to us all. I get to keep Avery, and I'll keep my mouth shut on this issue. What does that gain you? Well, errr... Oh, very well. Kill me, and they'll find out eventually. I think Elkins very nearly had it once, and the others are hot on your trail. I promise. I'll get them not to tell Harry, if you leave me alive. Why should you believe me? Well, I'm a Gryffindor. Oh, I see. Right. I just didn't see it ending this way. CINDY, THERE'S A DE MURDERING ME IN THE BASEMENT! AND I WANT TO LIVE! I WANT TO LIVE TO RELAX IN OUR NEW CANON SUPPORTED MATCHING ARMCHAIR! HELP! Eileen From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed May 22 22:42:06 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:42:06 -0000 Subject: Auror Trio? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39001 We have had some discussion about which of the trio would make good aurors, and whether Crouch's comments on this can be trusted. I like Penny's suggestion that JKR has got her wires crossed between Crouch acting in Moody's character and his general untrustworthiness. (I also liked the idea somebody put forward some months ago that the three of them together would make a good auror.) Here's my take on aurors in GOF. It seems pretty clear to me on the first reading of GOF that we are intended to figure that Ron may be left out in the auror stakes, and that there is a potential source of tension here. If in a future book real Moody endorses the sort of thinking put out by Crouch then that will put pressure on Ron - he will have yet another ground for jealousy of H&H. That 'Moody' is Crouch puts a layer of uncertainty on this as we have discussed, however, I think to discuss which of them are good aurors is to fall into JKR's trap. To me the question raised by GOF is: is it desirable to (want to) be an auror? Cindy's humerous list of auror characteristics shows pretty clearly that the aurors are an ambiguous lot: Moody is on the side of good, but a sinister presence in the Pensieve scene who distances himself from Dumbledore's attitudes on a point as crucial as whether Snape should have a second chance. Frank Longbottom was popular - but so was Bagman and so, we assume, is Lockhart. Crouch Sr has shown how easy they are to corrupt - once he authorised the use of the curses some at least (by contrast with Moody) did not try very hard to avoid using them. So the real irony of Crouch's encouragements to Harry and Hermione, and his implicit playing on Ron's envy, may be that really his compliments are no compliment at all. After all, if (as on a number of other occasions) Crouch can have had no love for aurors. This is where I like the 'trio is an auror' theory: all three contribute in their own way to the fight against evil. They owe nothing to MOM structures or thinking - why should they start to buy into something that has so signally failed the WW? Finally, may I add to Pippin's list of 'Ron moments': when Harry is being interrogated by Snape and Lupin, Ron bursts in and immediately says something like 'I gave Harry those things' - either he has had the journey back from Hogsmeade to do a faultless bit of analysis, or he intuitively sums up the situation when he arrives. David From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed May 22 22:53:04 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:53:04 -0000 Subject: Coherence II Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39002 I got rather more replies to my coherence post than I expected - the reverse of the usual situation. I just want to pick up on two points: to refine what I mean about coherence from book to book, and to discuss the mother's love thing in particular. Much of what I wrote was merely autobiographical - I was trying to explain where I am coming from, particularly the type of books I read that might seem to be precursors to HP. Quite simply, I have had in the past a very low expectation of authors' willingness to create a consistent universe. Like Pippin, I expect my background to be distinctly impressionistic: perhaps there is a discussion to be had there about the tension between archetypal and detective-story, as well as novelistic, characters. (J.I.M. Stewart, aka Michael Innes, has written on the problem that detective authors face with characterisation: the better drawn their characters, the less psychologically plausible it is to keep them all equally suspect up to the final denouement.) Anyway, I am quite happy to concede that there is a clear developmental arc for the main characters that is intended to be present from the beginning (Finwitch's point), and that there are clearly signalled 'problems' (such as why Voldemort attacked Harry, why Snape flip-flopped into and out of DEism, what exactly was going on when James rescued Snape) awaiting a later book for resolution. There are also blanks awaiting filling in, for example, did Lily have no friends at school? What I remain to be convinced of is that there are *clues* which make no sense in terms of the book they are in, but do make sense in a later book. The sort of thing I am thinking of would be if Scabbers had done something odd in COS or PS, for example hiding in a hurry from somebody who later turns out to have known Pettigrew well enough to recognise him. I realise this is not a very good example as the whole animagi thing is supposed to be secret from all except the Marauders themselves, and Voldemort. But you get the idea. Things that we could look back on *from one book to another* and say "ah, *now* we realise what that was about!" Another example for symposium attenders would be a mysterious absence of Neville (actually seeing his parents), or an overreaction by him to pain in another person, in POA or before. I don't count simple foreshadowings such as Harry's Parseltongue, because they are not mysterious - we just assume in PS with Harry that it's a wizard thing to talk to snakes. The trouble with these is that *any* apparently innocuous statement can be one of those. The name of a Sorted pupil, the fact that Mr Jordan is owed money by Bagman, that fact that the statue of Boris the Bewildered has his gloves on the wrong hands (one of my all time favourite lines), ad infinitum. GOF is apparently full of such clues or puzzles: Skeeter's mannishness, her and Winky's assertions about Bagman, which seem to go beyond anything we know about him, the remarks the Weasleys make about the Voldemort era, the identity of the fourth man at Crouch's trial, Dumbledore's gleam, the missing three at the rebirthing party. My worry is that they (apart from the gleam) will turn out to be either forgotten (eg the fourth man) or just overdone in-book red herrings (Rita and Winky on Bagman to make us think he is the faithful servant, the missing three to make us suspect Bagman or Snape also). Luke has written on this several months ago. So, a challenge for you all: find something in an early book which is a puzzle that is resolved in a later one. I repeat, I am *not* talking about mere foreshadowings, I am talking about mysteries, and I am *not* talking about mysteries that have been clearly presented as such. I mean clues that with some thought and luck might have given the reader help in cracking the puzzle in the later book. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ The Voldemort mysteries. There are three of these: how Harry survived, how Voldemort lost his powers, and why he attacked Harry in the first place. Mystery 1: how Harry survived. At the end of PS, this is *not* explained. All Dumbledore says is that *Quirrell* could not touch Harry safely because of Lily's love and/or sacrifice (I will say more about the distinction later). At the end of COS, Harry asserts that it *was* because of Lilly's love. This is a reasonable deduction, but Dumbledore nowhere endorses it. Riddle does, of course, but we may choose to believe he is deluded or lying. Mystery 2: how Voldemort lost his powers. At the end of PS this is not discussed. At the end of COS, Harry says that nobody knows how it happened. Again, one wonders why he is so sure. Did he have an off-stage discussion with Dumbledore? That would seem deeply unfair to the reader. Did he just assume it, even though Dumbledore did not discuss it, perhaps because it is plain that most of the WW is baffled by it? However, at the end of GOF, Voldemort states fairly clearly that he lost his powers because his curse (assumed AK, as Crouch/Moody assumed) 'rebounded' off Harry's protection, still assumed to be Lily's love. Again, we may consider that Voldemort is lying or deluded, and there are attractions to the 'deluded' theory, as it can be linked with the gleam. There are two basic possibilities, IMO. A. Voldemort is right (and truthful), and in fact Lily's love is the 'solution' to mysteries 1 and 2. If so, I feel slightly cheated that there are no authorial fanfares that say 'here's the answer'. Harry doesn't pause to say "Now I understand this mysery that nobody in the whole WW knows". In his debrief, there is no mention of Sirius slapping his forehead and saying "Lily's love! How wonderful! How simple! And yet how it explains everything! Now I understand why Voldemort was crippled!" As a purported explanation it may stack up, but if so it is just not given the prominence it deserves. B. Voldemort is wrong, and there is more to Voldemort's defeat, and possibly Harry's survival, than Lily's love. (This has strong emotional appeal to all who feel that it is a slight on all other mothers who are presumed to have died protecting their offspring - again, I discuss further below.) From the detective story point of view, this is also much better, and Harry's comments to Riddle, and Voldemort's rebirthing speech are then misdirection. It is a commentary on Voldemort's dumb evil overlordness that he swallows this twice, once as Riddle, again at rebirthing. One would hope that a really consummate villain would at least say "Hang on, that can't quite be right... Never mind, let's get on with the Aveda Keadvra- ing, it's so much more fun than figuring out exactly what happened..." and it would, IMO, give the reader a little bit more chance to see that some misdirecting is going on. (A parallel would be the Great Slytherin Misdirection, where Hagrid says "Everybody says Hufflepuff are a load of duffers but..." before being cut off. It signals that house prejudices *are* just that, which is all we need. I feel that, to be fair, misdirection should clearly look like misdirection, once the reader looks at it closely with that possibility in mind.) I think the problem with this is that, to be satisfactory, misdirection should be of the kind that on re-reading makes us say that we should have spotted the answer all along. But there are no puzzles in the Lily's love explanation *as an explanation*. It may be unsatisfying emotionally or thematically, but there is no actual logical obstacle. And there are no other suspects waiting in the wings at the moment - all other explanations require a large dose of reader invention which makes a reverse memory charm look like solid canon: new anti-AK charms perfected by the Department of Mysteries; some intrinsic property to Harry (like Stonedness) that makes him a fundamentally different order of being; that he himself is the product of an experiment; the use of Time Turners on a scale of decades. In short, the puzzles of the Mother Love theory are presentational, not substantive: why does JKR say what she does about it when she does? I realise I am a little unclear about what I find unsatisfactory about all this: the best I can say is that Harry's COS comments and Voldemort's speech do not have the 'flavour' either of revelation, or of JKR's other misdirections. Yet it seems they must be one or the other. Can anyone help? I promised above to comment on the Lily's love theory itself. My understanding of this is that her sacrifice alone, even on Harry's behalf, was not the thing that actually provided the protection. That was provided by the depth and, in some sense, purity of her love for Harry. The protection only came into force when she died, because her death demonstrated the nature of that love. She specifically offered herself in Harry's place, so there was no self- motivation, and she carried through on her promise. So it's the combination of act and motive that counts. As far as other mothers are concerned, my feeling is that thematically this is not a problem. There must be some uniqueness somewhere around Harry - he is signalled out as unique from the start. I am far more comfortable with the idea that it was his mother's love that was the unique thing in the whole situation, than that he is the heir of Gryffindor or is otherwise a special being. At least there is some chance of reconciling that with the theme of choice. (Of course, I would be even more comfortable with a history that gives *no* unique roles - or everybody is unique in their own way - but that is not on offer in the Potterverse.) David From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu May 23 00:07:06 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 00:07:06 -0000 Subject: FILK: Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39003 I've been wanting to do a Hermione filk for ages, but couldn't come up with a tune that properly expressed my enthusiasm for the character. I think I finally got it, though. Hermione To the tune of "Prince Ali" from Disney's Aladdin. Scene: Harry, Ron, Neville, Fred, George and Remus Lupin sing the praises of Hermione. The Slytherins offer an opposing view. EVERYONE: Three cheers! For Hermione! Three cheers! For Hermione! F&G: Yo! See her go in and out of class! No trick, See her kick Academic ass! Don't try To compete, she'll make you look a fool. NL: Step up! Show your pride! We've got on our side The cleverest witch in school. R&H: Hermione! Brilliant she! Hermione Granger. She's the best, aces each test Consummately. If you need help with a spell, Just ask this magical belle, Her brain with more facts is swelled than a library! Hermione! Genius she! Hermione Granger. It's quite plain she is a brain of high degree. Faced with a hint or a clue, She always knows what to do. Who'll always be smarter than you? Hermione! F&G: She's got a hundred and fifty IQ points. Logic puzzles she solves on the fly. She is open to differing viewpoints. Academic whiz, That's what she is, from Charms to Arithmancy. RL: Hermione! Clever is she, Hermione Granger. Without a doubt she figured out my lycanthropy. The gal with the bushy locks Is sure to knock off your socks. I'm here to tell you she rocks, Hermione! SLYTHERINS: Ooh, that Granger, she thinks she is so smart, But we know she's a Muggle-born upstart. Everything about that girl is just annoying. She's a Mudblood, she's a worthless nothin' When she comes around we feel like cussin' 'Cause our academic standing she's destroying. R&H (NL) She can help you with Charms and with Potions. (She's always helpful! So very helpful!) On her intellect we all agree. (She's brilliant, so brilliant.) She can coach you in proper wand motions. ('Cause she knows them all.) We have to aver our respect for her, We're just bursting with pride in Hermione! Hermione! EVERYBODY (Except the Slytherins) Hermione! Wonderful she, Hermione Granger. Stunned us all at the Yule Ball with her beauty. The fellows all were struck dumb To see her dancing with Krum. She brought it off with panache and grace, But she's so much more than a pretty face, She's a loyal pal, she's a stand-up gal, To our success she is key! Three cheers for Hermione! Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 23 00:10:12 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 00:10:12 -0000 Subject: Coherence II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39004 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: >>>> What I remain to be convinced of is that there are *clues* which make no sense in terms of the book they are in, but do make sense in a later book. So, a challenge for you all: find something in an early book which is a puzzle that is resolved in a later one. I repeat, I am *not* talking about mere foreshadowings, I am talking about mysteries, and I am *not* talking about mysteries that have been clearly presented as such. I mean clues that with some thought and luck might have given the reader help in cracking the puzzle in the later book.<<< How about the cabbage smell in Mrs. Figg's house? That's mentioned in Book One, and doesn't seem magical until we find out about the resemblance between Perkin's tent and Mrs. Figg's furnishings at the World Cup. Then an "Arabella Figg" turns out to be one of the old crowd, and JKR awarded a "well-spotted" to the person who connected her with Harry's Mrs. Figg in a chat. I think that counts as a puzzle since Harry hasn't twigged to the fact as yet. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ------------------------------------ > > The Voldemort mysteries. There are three of these: how Harry > survived, how Voldemort lost his powers, and why he attacked Harry in the first place. > > Mystery 1: how Harry survived. At the end of PS, this is *not* > explained. All Dumbledore says is that *Quirrell* could not touch Harry safely because of Lily's love and/or sacrifice (I will say more about the distinction later). At the end of COS, Harry asserts that it *was* because of Lilly's love. This is a reasonable deduction, but Dumbledore nowhere endorses it. Riddle does, of course, but we may choose to believe he is deluded or lying. > > Mystery 2: how Voldemort lost his powers. At the end of PS this is not discussed. At the end of COS, Harry says that nobody knows how it happened. Again, one wonders why he is so sure. Did he have an off-stage discussion with Dumbledore? That would seem deeply unfair to the reader. Did he just assume it, even though Dumbledore did not discuss it, perhaps because it is plain that most of the WW is baffled by it? > > However, at the end of GOF, Voldemort states fairly clearly that he lost his powers because his curse (assumed AK, as Crouch/Moody assumed) 'rebounded' off Harry's protection, still assumed to be Lily's love. Again, we may consider that Voldemort is lying or deluded, and there are attractions to the 'deluded' theory, as it can be linked with the gleam. > > There are two basic possibilities, IMO. > > A. Voldemort is right (and truthful), and in fact Lily's love is > the 'solution' to mysteries 1 and 2. If so, I feel slightly cheated > that there are no authorial fanfares that say 'here's the answer'. > Harry doesn't pause to say "Now I understand this mysery that nobody in the whole WW knows". In his debrief, there is no mention of Sirius slapping his forehead and saying "Lily's love! How wonderful! How simple! And yet how it explains everything! Now I understand why Voldemort was crippled!" As a purported explanation it may stack up, but if so it is just not given the prominence it deserves. > > B. Voldemort is wrong, and there is more to Voldemort's defeat, and possibly Harry's survival, than Lily's love. (This has strong emotional appeal to all who feel that it is a slight on all other mothers who are presumed to have died protecting their offspring - again, I discuss further below.) From the detective story point of view, this is also much better, and Harry's comments to Riddle, and Voldemort's rebirthing speech are then misdirection. It is a commentary on Voldemort's dumb evil overlordness that he swallows this twice, once as Riddle, again at rebirthing. One would hope that a really consummate villain would at least say "Hang on, that can't quite be right... Never mind, let's get on with the Aveda Keadvra- ing, it's so much more fun than figuring out exactly what happened..." and it would, IMO, give the reader a little bit more chance to see that some misdirecting is going on. < Snip> > > I think the problem with this is that, to be satisfactory, > misdirection should be of the kind that on re-reading makes us say that we should have spotted the answer all along. But there are no puzzles in the Lily's love explanation *as an explanation*.<<< What we have, I think, are Dumbledore, Harry and Voldemort exchanging working hypotheses, saying more or less what they believe to be true at the moment, but edited for psychological impact and possible disinformation to the other side. Dumbledore puts the emphasis on Lily's love for Harry because this is what Harry needs most to understand, that his mother's love is still with him and will always protect him. It could be the explanation is true but incomplete because Dumbledore, who understands TMR pretty well, expects this information to get back to Voldemort somehow. Which it may have, via Pettigrew. When Harry is speaking to Riddle in CoS, he falls back on what Hagrid told him at the beginning of PS/SS "Vanished. That's the biggest myst'ry,see...he was gettin' more an more powerful--why'd he go?[...]Because somethin' about you finished 'im, Harry. I dunno what it was, no one does..." Harry puts it more forcefully in the Chamber, "No one knows why you lost your powers.." and leaves out that everyone thinks it has something to do with him. He *wants* Riddle to attack him at this point, so telling Riddle that it was something about him, apart from his mother, would not be a good idea. Riddle has been wondering the same thing, but accepts it that it was all mother-love, "there is nothing special about you after all". Adult Voldemort presumably *does* know why he wanted to kill baby Harry, and is (possibly) being directed away from thinking that this had something to do with why the curse rebounded. My thought is that Voldemort is being misdirected, thus the gleam. Harry does not know the entire truth about himself according Dumbledore's speech at the end of PS/SS. We have not been given enough clues to work out exactly what the answer is yet, but we have the puzzle entire: Why did Voldemort want to kill Harry, and is it in fact tied to the way the AK rebounded? Pippin From Jeopardy18 at mediaone.net Wed May 22 19:34:35 2002 From: Jeopardy18 at mediaone.net (seanmulligan2000) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:34:35 -0000 Subject: Opening For a Gryffindor Chaser In-Reply-To: <20020521074725.74654.qmail@web20809.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39005 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Eclipse wrote: > > I hadn't realised this until I was thinking about > it the other day. Angelina Johnson is a chaser for the > Gryffindor team. In Goblet of Fire she says that she > put her name in the goblet. This means that she is a > seventh year and is done with her schooling at the end > of the book. This means that there is an opening for a > chaser as well as keeper on the Gryffindor team. > > Eclipse I think that Angelina is a sixth year like the Weasley twins. She just has a birthday late in the year, but she started the year at age 16 > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience > http://launch.yahoo.com From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed May 22 22:22:44 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:22:44 -0000 Subject: Ron's Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39006 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ellaenchanted87" wrote: > As I'm fairly new here I'm not sure if this is a topic you've covered > here before, but it suddenly occured to me that, according to the > "rules" Ms. Rowling has set up about the world of wizards, Ron should > not have been able to inherit his wand from one of his older siblings > (from which one, I'm not sure as I haven't got the book here in front > of me). When Harry was buying his wand at Ollivander's, Mr. > Ollivander > himself told him that "the wand chooses the wizard," and not the > other > way around. How, then, was Ron able to manage with that old hand-me- > down wand of his? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, Ollivander does say that 'the wand chooses the wizard.' However, he *also* says that ' you will never get such good results with another wizard's wand'. Which implies IMO that a wizard can use someone else's wand. Secondary support for this theory is in GoF - when little Kevin at the Quidditch World Cup uses his Daddy's wand to engorge a slug. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Another theory I considered for a short time was that since Ron is a > blood relative of whomever he inherited the wand from, that's why he > could get it to work. Has anyone got any other ideas? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It may explain why the Weasley's were willing to send him off with a second hand wand - it would be 'close enough for him to learn the basics with'. Or it might be like musical instruments - you don't *need* a top-of-the-range wand to practice with. Ollivander also talks about Lily Evans Potter's 'first' wand - which implies she bought a second. Perhaps the time spent finding the wand that matches Harry is another signal that this boy is going to need all the help he can get... Pip (who wants to know if Dumbledore is an animagi, and if so, which animal?) From ronale7 at yahoo.com Wed May 22 22:49:51 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (ronale7) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:49:51 -0000 Subject: Time-tracking Voldemort Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39007 In PA, chapter 19, Sirius says Voldemort has been in hiding for 15 years. This statement is made in June, 1994. Thus Voldemort has been hiding since 1979. There's another event we're sure happened in 1979: Harry's conception, probably on October 31. Is there a connection? In GF, chapter 33, Voldemort says it's been 13 years since he and the DE's last met. He states this in June of 1995. But that would put the meeting in 1982. Yet in October, 1981, Voldemort lost his powers--he was in no condition to meet anyone. True, the meeting could have happened 13 years, 7 months earlier-- immediately before the Potters were attacked. But Voldemort is stressing the time that has passed. Surely he would be inclined to exaggerate rather than minimize the period. Additionally, in chapter 10, PA, we learn Dumbledore had a "number of useful spies." At least one alerted him to Voldemort's being after the Potters. It must have taken time to report to Dumbledore, to choose the person who would keep the secret of the Potter whereabouts, and to perform the Fidelius charm. I know, I know. Voldemort attacked barely a week after the charm was worked (chapter 10, PA.) But that makes the elapsed time since the meeting with the DE's longer. We seem to have another time inconsistency here. We also have a few character inconsistencies. Voldemorte held his last meeting, whenever it was, after he had gone into hiding. I can't believe he didn't know there were spies in his following. He must have realized they would run to Dumbledore. Why chance coming out of hiding? Similarly I can't believe a man as astute as Dumbledore would rely on one, just one, protection for Lily and James. Could he, or someone he selected, have arrived at their home in time to help Harry and thwart Voldemort? Perhaps when Harry heard someone stumbling from a room, (PA, chapter 12) he was really hearing someone stumbling _into_ the room where he and Voldemort were. Someone a concentrating Voldemort may or may not have noticed.... If that indeed happened, I'll place my money on the man who seems very sure about the way James died--Snape (PA, chapter 19.) I'm not happy with this theory. Not only did I conjure it reluctantly but I hold it gingerly. And yet I must ask myself "Why not?" The theme of the books is the conflict between good and evil. That conflict is present in Harry's name. Harry is also a name for the devil (Old Harry.) And Potter is often a title given to the Creator. Thus the name of the protagonist alludes to good and evil coexisting in one person. If true for Harry, why not for Snape? --Ronale7 From divaclv at aol.com Wed May 22 23:29:14 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 23:29:14 -0000 Subject: Ron's Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39008 (snip) > How, then, was Ron able to manage with that old hand-me- > down wand of his? (I suppose one could argue that Ron WASN'T in fact > able to use it properly, and that this might be the cause of some of > the "mishaps" that he experienced in his first several years at > Hogwarts, such as the belching-up-slugs incident, but I'm not sure I > agree with that.) I think the belching-up slugs etc. was due to the fact that the wand was broken and not working properly, and not because it didn't "belong" to Ron (at least in CoS, can't think of any incidents offhand in the first book). (snip) > Has anyone got any other ideas? > > Sincerely, > Ella :) My understanding is that you can use another person's wand, but you might not do it with as great of finesse, ease, or whatever you choose to call it. It's a little like driving another person's car (imperfect analogy, but it's the best I can come up with): you probably won't crash it into a tree or anything, but it will probably feel a bit awkward. Speaking of which, given the events at the climax of GoF, think LV will ditch his current wand for something more, er, potentially effective? ~Christi From jferer at yahoo.com Thu May 23 01:21:14 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 01:21:14 -0000 Subject: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective)] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39009 Serenadust:"I don't expect anyone who reads or writes fanfiction to change their minds about it based on my problems with it, and it really wasn't my intention to do so. I just wanted to explain why I find it to be too subversive in it's relationship to canon for me personally to enjoy." I have to admit a lot of fanfiction does that, but that's only one kind of fanfiction. Other fics set out to explore and explain the universe JKR created, and try to be faithful to the Potterverse; so they don't explore the "books" themselves, but the universe and people described in the books. Some fics are written to look at questions, like "What if we found out the Potterverse was real?" or "What if *my* kid got a Hogwarts letter?" But before I am totally guilty of OT posting: sariadotia at a... wrote (concerning a Draco/Herm ship):"Ok, I honestly do not understand why so many people even consider this as a possible future relationship." Heidi wrote:" Um, because nothing has happened to date to rule it out? Because JKR's sowed the seeds for a redemption for Draco, which would be a necessary precursor to such a thing happening?" Like you, Serena, I don't see any redemption seeds in Draco; and I would say that, for the Hermione I know, "...Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first! Well, the second; Diggory was the f..." rules out Draco/Hermione for me, or I lose respect for her. For Draco to turn into someone Hermione could love it seems some new being would have to steal Draco's skin and reoccupy it. From jferer at yahoo.com Thu May 23 02:08:59 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 02:08:59 -0000 Subject: FF: Speculation; Fanfic as Laboratory In-Reply-To: <004201c201bd$98fbca00$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39010 As someone who's read and written fanfic, I'm here to defend it as a way to understand the Harry Potter universe and the people who live there. It seems to me that fanfic is an even clearer way than discussion to throw light on how we think the Potterverse works and what makes its characters tick. Jo Serenadust, commenting on Heidi's theory of a Draco/Hermione romance possibility, said:" just don't see how you were able to do this without ignoring 4 volumes of careful character development by JKR. I guess I'm just too literal-minded a reader to manage this leap." There's no better way for Heidi to make her case than by showing us how Draco's redemption and a Draco/Hermione romance could happen. Any discussion we could have is more abstract and detached than what Heidi does. She *shows* us. Once she's done that, we're perfectly free to debate how successful she was and how we were or weren't persuaded. In other words, I believe fanfic is _the most direct_ way to make our points, and Heidi makes them really well. That I, for example, don't agree is neither here nor there, and has as much to do with my gut dislike of Draco as anything. Penny:"I still stand by my position that it is impossible to say that you are reading a work with authorial intent in mind, unless you've got firm unequivocal written evidence of authorial intent from the author." I think it's perfectly fair for Serena to infer what the author's intent is, so long as she can defend her view. We try facts all the time based on a preponderance of the evidence. (And end up wrong much of the time). It's also fair to criticize a fic if it seems too far off JKR's intent to be believeable. Jo Serenadust:"Fanfic IMO brings a whole new, subversive level of distortion to the characters in particular. They aren't JKR's Harry, Ron, Hermione, et al; they *can't* be. I wouldn't care so much if I hadn't read so many posts citing other author's versions of the characters in support of the posters perceptions of the canon characters." Fanfic can distort, but so can discussion or any other medium. It's the potential power of the fic form that makes "character distortion" so disturbing. The further the author strays into controversial views of the characters the greater the burden to make it believeable. I see fanfiction as a laboratory for experimenting with these characters and the Potterverse itself. We can use it to explain, debate, or speculate about JKR's world (and it's a tribute to the greatness of what JKR has done that we feel like doing it). It's also a good place to walk around in and send postcards home. From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Thu May 23 02:17:57 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 19:17:57 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re:differences of opinion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39011 Finwitch said: >>What kind of people think that defending Human Rights is Evil?<< I think that the problem with people who say that Harry Potter is evil is that most of them ~haven't read the books~. They see a series that is about ~witches~ and magic and it must be evil. It must of course be teaching the children evil things like making them want to become wizards as a career choice. You may have noticed by my tone that I think this type of thinking is very narrow minded to say the least but unfortunately that's the basis for most of the arguments for banning the books. There's actually a school board near where I live in Canada that wants to ban the books (idiots in my opinion -- wouldn't want to give the kids something that they actually ~want~ to read now would we?) Unfortunately the people who think this way wouldn't actually read the books with an open mind (if at all) because then they'd have to admit that they were wrong and fanatics of course never are wrong (just ask the Dursleys ;)) Just thought I'd put in my two cents. --- --Hana ________________________________________________________ Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Thu May 23 03:29:45 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 20:29:45 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FF: Speculation; Fanfic is like TBAY Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39012 Sorry for the length of this post, but it's a topic that I personally find important to me. I myself enjoy reading and writing fanfiction and I find that one of the things I most enjoy about it is the exploration of options. In fanfiction any theories can be explored in some format. Here on this list we have TBAY where people make up all sorts of anagrams to explain their views, on other lists people write stories to explain theirs. Its really the same thing in a lot of ways, just presented in different formats. Ill be the first to admit that not all fanfiction is of high quality or very creative or well thought out, but then some of it is ~very~ good and canon based. Fanfiction, like other ways to express your views varies a great deal. There are serious stories that are very plausible according to canon (Ron/Hermione ships for instance) and others that are downright scary (anyone and Voldemort). Some stories are simply done for humour because someone was struck with an odd idea like what if Draco hit Harry with a spell and made him a girl? Or what if Fred and George put a love potion in the soup? Its done for pure entertainment value and isnt always meant to be in character. Fanfiction is also a place to explore relationships that will probably never show up in canon simply because theyre not really socially acceptable if for no other reason (ie. slash) A lot of people like slash as a genre and they have few outlets for exploring their options really ~besides~ fanfiction. Ive actually read some very well written slash stories that are very believable when filling in the blanks left in canon that are not touched on because theyre not in Harrys direct experience (most notably PoA and Snape/Lupin relationships). Granted, some fanfiction is wildly implausible. I personally dislike the I-woke-up-one-morning-and-realized-that-I-love--even-though-we-hated-each-other-until-last-night type of stories simply because they ~are~ so wildly implausible and, unless its a PWP that doesnt have to be realistic because thats the nature of the fic type then I can rarely enjoy it. Some fic ideas seem implausible at first but when the theory behind them is examined, they works. Take the previously mentioned Draco/Hermione ship. I dont really see this happening in canon because by all appearances Draco hates Mudbloods and its hard to picture him loving one, and while Hermione is forgiving, shes not stupid. If these two were to get together some things need to happen such as a) Draco having something previously unknown in his past that explains his behaviour (abused at home, fears father, terribly insecure, punished for liking a Mudblood before etc) or b) something terrible happens to him to make him realize how wrong his views are. In both situations Hermione might feel sympathy for him, or take him up as a cause etc to get her past her initial dislike and distrust. In either case it now becomes plausible for a relationship to occur between them. Will it happen in canon? Unlikely. Is it believable given the characterizations if well written , then yes. Now, this is my personal approach to fanfiction, but it lends itself to good and convincing writing. Part of the challenge is to take characters that dont seem likely to get together or interact in a certain way and find a situation that will make it work believably based on their canon characterizations. Not everyone is successful at doing this, but others do amazing jobs. It all depends on the amount of thought the author puts into the idea. jferer wrote: >>Some fics are written to look at questions, like "What if we found out the Potterverse was real?" or "What if *my* kid got a Hogwarts letter?"<< Now for me personally, I dislike this type of fanfic. Id rather stick to the characters that JKR has written as much as possible and use any original characters as minor characters rather than main ones (unless theyre worked in really well and even then I prefer them to be secondary characters not focus ones). To me the fun in reading and writing in JKRs universe is to explore her characters. After all, we know a lot about Harry, but what about others? Do we really know how Draco ~thinks~? We know how he acts, but how many people have said things in front of others that they may not believe but do so to be liked, or because theyre expected to act that way etc.? (I dont really believe this about Draco, but we dont ~know~ it isnt true not yet at least) Fanfiction allows us to explore these options in a format other than essay-type discussions. What are descriptions such as Redeemable!Draco, Evil!Percy, Ambitious!Ron but fan speculations into possible character mot ivation? Why not express it in story format? Alternate timelines can also be interesting. I mean, what ~would~ have happened if James and Lily had survived but not Harry? What if Harry ~had~ been put into Slytherin? What if Dumbledore had that glint in his eye because he really ~was~ evil all along? What if Harry was really Harriet? The possibilities are endless. The best fanfiction keeps the characters close to JKRs characterizations and simply puts them into new situations to see how they will react. For me, I read tons of fanfiction, but I usually ignore all of the TBAY posts because if Im going to be examining theories put forth by people Id rather do it in narrative form. That could just be a quirk of mine but I think that a lot of people think the same way which could be one reason that at places like FanFiction.Net there are over 36 000 HP fanfics (most of any fandom by over 10 000 fics). Are all of these high-quality? I doubt it. Do they explore the authors theories in a way thats satisfying for the author? Probably. Does everyone have to read and enjoy them? Of course not. Its purely another way to express our love of the wonderful universe and characters created by JKR. --- --Hana ________________________________________________________ Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus From mdartagnan at yahoo.com Thu May 23 03:44:21 2002 From: mdartagnan at yahoo.com (mdartagnan) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 03:44:21 -0000 Subject: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective)] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39013 Jo Serenadust wrote: "I don't expect anyone who reads or writes fanfiction to change their minds about it based on my problems with it, and it really wasn't my intention to do so. I just wanted to explain why I find it to be too subversive in it's relationship to canon for me personally to enjoy." Well, where I live, being "subversive" was a good thing for many years. :) Anyway, as a fanfic writer and reader, I think I might understand how you feel. Personally, I don't read *anything* starring Harry, Ron and Hermione, nor anything that takes place on Hogwarts during books five, six and seven ?though I am guilty of planning a slashy story that would take place during a "final battle" againt Voldemort... maybe because it's already an AU for me. Why? It's not because those fanfics aren't good ?God forbid I might insinuate that. It's just that, at least for me, that's a story that JKR will tell us (someday). And I want to read that first. I am sure there are fanfics out there that already showed or hinted at what will happen, even if right now it might seem (for some of us) farfetched. Personally, I want JKR to surprise me first, and then I'll read those fanfics I've missed for years. But hey, that's just me. Patience is indeed a virtue. -_-** jferer wrote: "I have to admit a lot of fanfiction does that, but that's only one kind of fanfiction. Other fics set out to explore and explain the universe JKR created, and try to be faithful to the Potterverse; so they don't explore the "books" themselves, but the universe and people described in the books." Agreed. I am not trying to lure Jo into fanfic (honest!), but I find easier to enjoy plots that don't revolve around the main three characters. Fanfics that revolve around Remus or Sirius or Snape, or about the Hogwarts faculty... Many of those stories try to fill in the gaps, or to answer questions about things that happenned long ago, and yet they don't contradict canon since JKR hasn't addressed them yet (like, for instance, who else knew about the Mirror of Erised? How would a meeting at the Faculty Room be?). Heidi wrote: " Um, because nothing has happened to date to rule it out? Because JKR's sowed the seeds for a redemption for Draco, which would be a necessary precursor to such a thing happening?" I think anything that revolves around Draco's redemption tends to be a bit subjective. Where some persons, like you, think that JKR has already "sowed the seeds" for it to happen, others might not see them ?or at least, they won't become clearer until the next book is published. Case in point: Yes, I do think Draco was somehow warning the Trio at the Quidditch World Cup. But for other persons, maybe he was just taunting them. Yes, I do think that all that Draco has is a tantrum because of Harry rejecting his friendship, but yes, I also hated his behavior at the end of GoF. And yes, I do believe he will be redeemed (though I, in this moment, don't think that it will be for love or friendship to Harry/Ron/Hermione)... but I would be happier if he wasn't redeemed. I mean, one of my all-time favorite characters, Long John Silver, wasn't redeemed. And that's why I like him so much. jferer -again- wrote: "Fanfic can distort, but so can discussion or any other medium. It's the potential power of the fic form that makes "character distortion" so disturbing. The further the author strays into controversial views of the characters the greater the burden to make it believeable." Personally, I think that it's also due to its narration format. It's not the same to say "Snape is a vampire" (which automatically makes you think "yes because..." or "no because..." than reading a carefully crafted storyline that fills the blanks about his skin and the way he moves and about Remus' remark and that just happens to mention that a bat was one of the animals that had his "own" frame during the HP movie and, proportionally, more screen time than Scabbers. Narration, IMO, is able to seduce a reader, even with the strangest theory, a bit more than theorical discussion. Marijose / Altair apologizing for her English. It's late here and I am sleepy. -_- From elfundeb at aol.com Thu May 23 04:23:47 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 00:23:47 EDT Subject: TBAY: The Night The Jabberknoll Screamed (LONG) Message-ID: <105.161a4bbb.2a1dc8d3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39014 Back at the office, Debbie once again pores over forgotten tomes, weary and bored. The eyes flicker, the head begins to bow, and soon Debbie finds herself . . . back in the Canon Museum. Yes, the symposium is over, and the hall is empty, or so it seems. There's Eloise, still sleeping in her MATCHING ARMCHAIR as the mediwizards from St. Mungo's arrive to reclaim her; and Avery across the way nervously peering out the window at the damaged Fourth Man Hovercraft, nay, two hovercrafts, one the mirror image of the first and bearing the name "Parallel Universe Fourth Man" on the masthead, each still moored to the dock. Avery looks perplexedly at the two, seemingly unsure which one to board. But what's this in the hallway? A ticket booth for the Reverse Memory Charm paddleboat? And there's Cindy, trying to grab Debbie, who still has her paddle as well as her FEATHERBOA, and strong-arm her into not only buying a ticket but also doing half the paddling. Debbie shudders and steps back into the meeting room, which is littered with programs, some spattered with ink mingled with black-olive Kool-Aid. Debbie wanders over to the remains of the refreshment table, picks up an empty plastic pitcher that once held Kool-Aid, and scrutinizes the inside, looking carefully for any evidence of Jobberknoll feathers. She puts the pitcher in a plastic bag, affixes a label, and puts the whole back into her satchel. She then strides back out toward Cindy's booth for a little chat. Debbie wants to be polite, but she definitely doesn't want to end up paddling laps around the Bay. Debbie overhears Cindy uttering a loud aside: > Maybe Cindy can *reason* with Debbie. Brute force has always worked better > than reason, Cindy > thought bitterly, but it might be worth a shot, just one last > desperate shot . . . > Uh, reasoning would be better, Cindy. You're talking to the only person on this list who thinks it's not out of the question that Frank actually knew something and did not Crack. Cindy continues:> > Ah, but that is why JKR's description of the Jobberknoll is so > *cool*. She doesn't tell us exactly what a Memory Potion is, and it > could easily go either way -- eliminating memories or enhancing > them. But, thank goodness for Reverse Memory Charm Neville, she > tells us that the feathers can be used for Truth Serums -- and the > only Truth Serum we've seen in action is Veritaserum, which causes > someone to recall something and reveal it against their will on > demand. Ah, but Truth Serum does not necessarily require the recipient to recall something he/she otherwise could not recall, only to spit it out, as the Jobberknoll does in death. > > So . . . logically, the feathers ought to have the same effect in > the Memory Potion -- causing someone to recall something and reveal > it against their will. Why have two potions that do the same thing? Each potion should do something quite different, depending on the other ingredients of the potion and how they are mixed together. The Truth Serum causes the recipient to out with the truth, as the Jobberknoll outs his memories. But something in the other Truth Serum ingredients must counteract that unfortunate backwards gibberish effect. There's no certainty that the Memory Potion does the same. There's no proof that a Memory Potion does not turn the memory into backwards gibberish. But Cindy, I do concede canonical plausibility. > > Also, > why would anyone bother with a Memory Potion (gathering ingredients, > brewing it, feeding it to the victim) when they can just hurl a > Memory Charm at them and be done with it? > Maybe the potion works better. We can do a study comparing Neville and Lockhart. We can check out Lockhart when we visit Eloise. Now on to this interpretation point. I say the Lestranges talked their way out of being sent to Azkaban in the first place. You say: > Sirius is pretty clear: > Crouch Jr. "was caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd managed > to talk their way out of Azkaban." > > Sirius didn't say "was caught with a group of Death Eaters who'd > managed to talk their way out of *going* to Azkaban" or "talk their > way out of trouble." Given how little we have to go on, shouldn't > we take Sirius at his word here and decide that Crouch Jr. was the > only one of the Pensieve Four who hadn't landed in Azkaban? > Well, where I come from when we say we talked our way out of something, it means the thing never happened. I've never read this sentence any other way. (Of course, my sentence isn't *pure* canon, nor are any of my arguments, because I only own the US editions!) I think this is an unresolvable interpretive question, to be left to Judge Rowling. Next question - was Crouch Jr. innocent? Cindy, you say > > that the "Innocence" arguments require us to believe that Crouch Jr. > took Mrs. Lestrange to Frank's house and left without ever knowing > what was happening. If Crouch Jr. saw what was going on and did not > assist Frank, he's every bit as guilty as Mrs. Lestrange, I say. I agree. I was thinking, though, that it's also possible that only three people -- the Lestranges and Fourth Man -- came to the Longbottoms and Crouch Jr. just happened to be around when the MOM got around to an arrest. That would make Crouch a truthteller in the Pensieve. My recollection is that he doesn't go around telling outright lies; he prefers the double entendre to carry out his charade ("If there's one thing I hate, it's a Death Eater who walked free.") Now, this pesky problem of whether Mrs. Lestrange used Imperio. Cindy says yes. > > > . . . " I read this sentence to mean that Crouch needed > >to keep Moody alive and that he used Imperius to control him and > >keep him from getting out of the trunk. I don't think this > > statement means that Crouch used Imperius to force the truth out > >of Moody. Instead, I think Crouch used Ennervate when he wanted to > >talk to Moody, and perhaps Veritaserum (he had access to Snape's > >storeroom) to get truthful answers when he needed them. Cindy eyes the box of Yellow Flags that Elkins brought to the Symposium, particularly the sweaty one on top. No, Cindy, no! Please! Not the Yellow Flag torture! I did say "perhaps." Upon reflection, Cindy decides to be nice and gets out her can(n)on: > > JKR is quite specific about what exactly Crouch Jr. did, and there > is no mention of Veritaserum. Crouch Jr. even tells us exactly what > he stole from Snape -- boomslang skin. Besides, Snape has a very > small amount of Veritaserum, and it is supposedly strictly > controlled. I doubt he leaves it lying about unguarded. > > Also, why would Crouch Jr. use Imperius just to *control* real > Moody? Real Moody can be controlled with Stun or with that Full > Body Bind curse or even Impedimenta. The reason to use Imperius, > IMHO, is to force Moody to talk. > Ok, maybe he didn't use Veritaserum. But can(n)on doesn't state he used Imperius to make him talk. It says, "I kept him alive, under the Imperius Curse. I wanted to be able to question him". It does not say that Crouch Jr. questioned Moody under the Imperius Curse. It says Moody was kept alive "under the Imperius Curse." That's one sentence. The next few sentences answer the question why he was kept alive, as I read it, not why he used Imperius to do it. "I wanted to be able to question him. . . . I also needed his hair. . . ." Debbie stops for a moment. Cindy is looking skeptically at her "Rules of English Grammar." Maybe she and Cindy had different grammar books. Maybe Cindy uses different sentence-parsing rules. Debbie adds that to the list of unresolvable issues. > The only way to avoid the conclusion that Crouch Jr. used Imperius > to question real Moody is to believe that Moody voluntarily told > Crouch Jr. all he needed to know. I rather doubt that. There's no question I think this Imperius reference is quite flinty either way. If Imperio is a substitute for Veritaserum, why isn't it used all the time? Why would torture ever be necessary? And if it wasn't used, Crouch Jr. doesn't give a full explanation of how he got Moody to talk. > > because if Imperius was a truth-telling device there'd be no reason not to > use it.> > Cindy then tries to convince Debbie that Frank could not have known anything: > I see no reason to think that Frank knew where Voldemort was -- particularly > if > Voldemort was but a noxious gas at that point. But there were plenty of animals in the forest with knowledge of the noxious gas. If Pettigrew could find him (GoF p. 655, US), it is not out of the question to think a trained Auror could too. > > Oh, I don't doubt that MoM was looking. I just think MoM didn't > know where Voldemort was and Frank Longbottom certainly didn't > know. And if Frank did know, does anyone really think he would > resist torture to the point of being driven insane rather than > reveal the information? Well, I have a few scenarios to answer that question. The one below posits that the torturers weren't finished with them yet. > > Debbie: > > >And why, even if they were gibbering wrecks, would the perps leave > >them alive? > > You know, I've checked my notes of the Symposium, and I *still* > haven't heard a compelling answer to this question. > Are you proposing that MoM tortured the > Longbottoms to break through a Memory Charm that the perps placed on > the Longbottoms rather than just killing them outright? > > Er, I may need some clarification there? Well, yes. That would be the /Bad Aurors torture Frank because they think maybe he's a double agent/Bad Aurors are nearly caught by DEs at the Door so they Memory Charm the Longbottoms intending to return (including Neville by accident)/MOM breaks through charm in desperate attempt to find culprits to try causing insanity of Longbottoms/ scenario. > But Debbie and Cindy move on to the Jobberknoll scenario: > > > But wouldn't [Neville's] association of the Jobberknoll death rattle with > >torture indicate that in fact he doesn't remember what Cruciatus > >actually sounds like? > > Oh, no. Neville knows *exactly* what the torture of his parents > sounds like. He also knows what the Jobberknoll death rattle sounds > like. The Egg sounds like the latter, not the former. But as the > death rattle *was* a backward version of the Longbottoms' screams, > the Egg did remind Neville of the torture, but indirectly so. And this wasn't a problem for him on the train when the Dementor arrived? > > Now if he heard the torture and his memory was *erased*, then why on > earth does he liken it to the torture -- a torture he doesn't > remember? Neville's been obsessed with the Cruciatus curse ever since he saw the spider suffer silently, and he's been trying to imagine what it sounds like. But you know, Cindy, I think I can explain all of these problems and disagreements. She did it on purpose. No, not Mrs. Lestrange. Rowling. She knew she wouldn't have the fifth book in time because of all that surgery she did to GoF, so she gave us something to do. She deliberately made it vague, wrote those sentences with a secret grammar book, made all those curses look Flinty. She knew we wouldn't be able to interpret anything consistently, forcing us to fall back on elaborate backstories and explanations. *We're doing her work for her.* Even now, she's logging off, after checking out the theories. She's very impressed with you, Cindy. She hadn't planned on doing anything with the Jobberknoll, but she's looking back at the manuscript now, trying to fit it in. Debbie grins at Cindy, then pulls the Kool-Aid pitcher out of her satchel. "And now I know how you remembered that obscure little bird." She reaches back into her satchel and pulls out a book, "Moste Potente Potions." Turning to the page reading Memory Potions, Debbie begins to read down the list of ingredients, which include . . . Kool-Aid. . . Jabberknoll feathers (exactly three, shredded) . . . and black olives. Just then a hideous commotion is heard from the basement. > CINDY, THERE'S A DE MURDERING ME IN THE BASEMENT! AND I WANT TO LIVE! > I WANT TO LIVE TO RELAX IN OUR NEW CANON SUPPORTED MATCHING ARMCHAIR! > HELP! > Oh, no! It's Eileen, reliving all her worst memories! I saw her while we were talking. She drank the potion! Is there an antidote? Cindy looks grim, but makes no response. Debbie thinks hard, then says softly to Cindy, I think there is one. Just one. It's a Memory Charm. Debbie, who sometimes can distinguish between Memory Charm Depreciation and tax depreciation > > For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit > Hypothetic Alley at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% > 20Files/hypotheticalley.htm > and Inish Alley at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? > method=reportRows&tbl=13 > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pennylin at swbell.net Thu May 23 03:22:04 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Wed, 22 May 2002 22:22:04 -0500 Subject: Ron's reactions, was Hermione: Panic attacks References: Message-ID: <00e101c20209$02eccdb0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 39015 Hi -- >>>> I said: Deliberate cruelty, just for the sake of cruelty, to a student is not something any teacher should engage in, IMHO. Besides, "bring her back to her senses?" How so? "Let's see, my teeth are hanging down past my chin & continuing to grow ... oh yeah, now that I'm calmer, I can see that yes, indeed, my teeth *are* hanging down past my chin & continuing to grow. Yes, I feel better about it all now." No, I think Hermione was quite well aware of the reality of the situation. <<<< Pippin: It wasn't for the sake of cruelty, IMO, it was to get her to stop being hysterical.>>>>>>> Er .... hysterical? Huh? I might need some canon evidence of hysterical. :--) Here's what I see: *** "Hermione, whimpering in panic, was clutching her mouth." *** "...panic-stricken, she felt them, and let out a terrified cry." *** "He forced Hermione to show Snape her teeth -- she was doing her best to hide them with her hands ...." *** "Hermione let out a whimper; her eyes filled with tears, she turned on her heel and ran ...." A few whimpers and one terrified cry don't amount to hysteria, IMHO. Yes, Laura, I too remember the pain of spacers. Ouch! So ... in your mind Hermione panics under stress and becomes hysterical or emotional at every opportunity? As I noted before, I just don't see that we have much evidence of clear panicking on Hermione's part. She's taken an active role in resolving the conflicts in each book and has only panicked with the Troll & Devil's snare. I'd say she's improved alot. :--) > Pippin again: > > <<<<< tends to panic -- as with Boggart McGonagall, to give another > example.>>>>>>>> I said: > Well, I can't comment on how much logic is involved in chess, but more than once, Ron has commented, "Hush up ... give me some time to think about this" when he's playing chess.<<< Pippin queries: <<>>>> At your service, Madame: (a) PS (Chapter 13) -- "Don't talk to me for a moment... I need to concen..." (b) PS (Chapter 16) -- "This wants thinking about ...." I was actually thinking that (a) above took place in CoS when Ron & Hermione were playing chess just before Harry found the petrified Justin Finch-Fletchley ... but it's in PS also. We don't see Ron paying chess as much in the last 2 books, and it's usually just a short reference to the game, without any commentary. But, the point is: he doesn't always act in a hurry & trust his intuition in playing chess; he takes his time to consider options ... just as Hermione does when approaching problems. Ron just doesn't apply this skill outside the chess board as far as I can see. Pippin sets out a list of examples of Ron thinking up good solutions or being on track with right answers: <<<>>>>> Sorry, but I don't see any evidence that it was Ron and Ron alone who came up with the plan. It appears the Twins could have been involved, though it's not certain. But, I wouldn't count this one. <<<<<--Despite being terrified by the spiders, Ron thinks to rescue Fang.>>>>>>> I'm afraid your memory fails you on this one -- "Get Fang!" Harry yelled ...." Ron gets credit for following Harry's direction & actually *doing* it, rather than being too paralyzed to act ... but he didn't think it up on his own. <<<<<>>>> True enough ... and Harry comes to that conclusion as well. Hermione is (a) using logic to its extreme in this case ... cats *do* prey on rats in the normal course of cat/rat relations, and (b) is blinded by emotion for her pet. But, my point is that Ron isn't alone in coming to this conclusion and in truth, I'm not so sure it's logic that gets him there (though I'll concede that's *possible*). Pippin: <<<<<<>>>>> It's been done already ... though with Harry & Hermione (not Ron and Hermione). You've heard of "Paradigm of Uncertainty"? [admits she hasn't ever heard of Anne Perry .... but thinks this idea's been done] Pippin: <<<<>>>>>> This is a great point and you could be right about him subconsciously processing information. I still tend to go with the surface-level read on this particular point, but you could be on to something there. AURORS -- Debbie made some really great points about Hermione's use of logic (how she uses logic) and reliance on her values in forming conclusions in certain instances (not quoting all of Debbie's great analysis). I agree completely that she doesn't always get the right answer via the best reasoning in the world, and this could very well be a problem later. Ron -- interesting points by Debbie about Ron making decisions and judgments based only on the facts before him. This makes sense to me too ... but I'm not sure aurors are any better off being unable to think beyond the immediate situation. I still don't agree with the notion that Ron "thinks outside the box." I do think Pippin has a good point that he may be processing things internally unbeknownst to himself .... but I'm not sure that "thinking outside the box" is unconscious. I've always considered it more an affirmative, conscious skill .. but maybe that's just me. No, wait, Laura said: <<<<>>>>> Yeah, what she said! :--) Dave distilled everything down to: <<<<<>>>> I think the answer to that is probably going to end up being "No." I'm not even convinced that there will be a need for aurors once the series is finished. But, assuming there's a need for something similar in a reconstituted MoM, I think it's possible that some of the Trio might find that to be rewarding work. My point really is this: Ron's mind does work differently than either Harry or Hermione. And, that's an Okay Thing. It doesn't have to be a slam on him; there are plenty of other things he can do with his life if he's not cut out to be an auror after all. But if H&H honestly have a talent that he doesn't have but wants, I think we can expect to see Ron's green monster rear its ugly head again. I also think I still go with the surface level read & conclusion that Ron is set apart from Harry & Hermione; I think this is a bit of foreshadowing or a red flag if you will. Just my opinion of course -- Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From fluxed at earthlink.net Thu May 23 08:17:52 2002 From: fluxed at earthlink.net (Darth Vulgarweed) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 03:17:52 -0500 Subject: Speculation, fanfic, perspective, and style In-Reply-To: <1022118360.2784.92743.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39016 >Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 01:21:14 -0000 > From: "jferer" >Subject: Re: FF: Speculation - a matter of perspective)] > >Serenadust:"I don't expect anyone who reads or writes fanfiction to >change their minds about it based on my problems with it, and it >really wasn't my intention to do so. I just wanted to explain why I >find it to be too subversive in it's relationship to canon for me >personally to enjoy." > >I have to admit a lot of fanfiction does that, but that's only one >kind of fanfiction. Other fics set out to explore and explain the >universe JKR created, and try to be faithful to the Potterverse; so >they don't explore the "books" themselves, but the universe and people >described in the books. > >Some fics are written to look at questions, like "What if we found out >the Potterverse was real?" or "What if *my* kid got a Hogwarts >letter?" But before I am totally guilty of OT posting: > >sariadotia at a... wrote (concerning a Draco/Herm ship):"Ok, I honestly >do not understand why so many people even consider this as a >possible future relationship." > >Heidi wrote:" Um, because nothing has happened to date to rule it out? >Because JKR's sowed the seeds for a redemption for Draco, which would >be a necessary precursor to such a thing happening?" > >Like you, Serena, I don't see any redemption seeds in Draco; and I >would say that, for the Hermione I know, "...Mudbloods and >Muggle-lovers first! Well, the second; Diggory was the f..." rules out >Draco/Hermione for me, or I lose respect for her. For Draco to turn >into someone Hermione could love it seems some new being would have to >steal Draco's skin and reoccupy it. > For me it's all about *negative capability*, you know, the ability to hold more than one idea in one's head at once? Like I said, a while back, the girl in the movie doesn't look like the Hermione in my head at all. Yet she's a fine young actor who did good work in the role, and I enjoy her interpretation--meanwhile still enjoying my own, which is different; the movie doesn't mess with my own mental version much at all. Etcetera, for the whole cast. It ain't rocket science. I agree with you--in *canon*, so far, there is nothing to point definitively towards Draco's redemption (and in canon, I'm not a huge supporter of it). Yet I have read and enjoyed many fanfics in which that happens. I mean, I _guess_ fanfic is subversive. (I'm reluctant to use that word 'cause it's a compliment where I come from, and I write the stuff, so I don't want to seem egotistical.) But only if you can only hold one possibility in your head at a time. I think most fans are smarter than that. Most fanfic readers, I know, can handle enjoying a fic where, say, Snape and Hermione discover they belong together 10 years after the latter finishes Hogwarts, and a few hours later, another one in which Snape was snowing Dumbledore all along and is a gajillion times sleazier than Pettigrew, and then, hours after that, Draco realizes his true destined love is Harry, that's why they reacted so strongly to each other all along. I think the anti-fanfic reaction is selling fanfic writers/readers short WRT the ability to consider multiple possibilities. Ultimately, the books are the books. Those are a "higher" take on this world than those of fanfic and always will be, and yet fanfic is still fun and worthwhile in its way (and will continue to be even after JKR is done--I mean, Lord of theRings fanfic is still being written too, and Professor Tolkien died 30 years ago). The reality fanfic spins is...related, but different. And honestly, the TBAY posts differ from fanfic only in writing style. Anyone who's fooled by that trick of the prose stylist...well, jeez. I write for a living, and I'm well aware that writing something in, say, first-person-omniscient doesn't make any *substantial* difference from writing it in, say, third-person-singular, no matter how many "maybe"'s you throw in. Look at it this way: (1) "President George W. Bush was nervous. Those reporters claimed to be unbiased, and yet, looking into their eyes, he couldn't shake the fact that those SOBs _knew_. It was as if they'd seen the same papers as the ones he'd ignored, full of fist-shaking threats from those who claimed to know the Will of Allah. He wished he could bundle up those papers and throw them away. Set them on fire. Shred them like Enron records. Oh, he'd heard the threats, well before, for years, heard about them from his father who knew all about them from his CIA years. But there had been so many before. How could he possibly have known that this time, they were real? Those bastards out there at the press conference had no clue what it was like to helm the biggest and most vulnerable ship on the seas of the universe-- how could they know what it was like to possess towers so grand that most of the world wanted nothing more than to take them down?" (2) "President George W Bush told the reporters that terrorist threats against the US were common, that there was no way anyone could have known that these threats would be put into practice." (3) "Ah, but maybe HE KNEW. Wouldn't THAT be something, President Bush KNOWING about the threats beforehand? That would put a whole new spin on it, wouldn't it? I mean, think about all the years his old man was head of the CIA. And you think there was no foreshadowing of this during the Reagan years???....ahem, I think NOT: [extensive quotes from Woodward's book on Iran/Contra making links from Reagan/Bush I to Islamic fundamentalists]" All facts from pulledoutofmyass.com, of course ('cept the Woodward book), and probably thoroughly boring to non-US folks, and I apologize, I'm just using what's at hand to try to make a point. Difference is: (1) is fanfic,(2) is standard AP-style reporting, (3) is TBAY. The difference is pretty superficial, though, really. Maybe the first IS more subversive, because it's more emotionally manipulative. To which I say, hey, DEAL. There's manipulation everywhere; making your case for your story is the root of both literature and advertising. Yes, actually, I do believe Draco is more likely to be redeemed than GWB (although neither, IMO, is *very* likely). But maybe I've just read the wrong fanfic...uh, theories...uh, canon. This is probably venturing super-OT, but I also *did* hear the undertones that Heidi was reacting to, and I don't blame her for reacting; I had to put my 2 Knuts in too. luv AV From anglinsbees at yahoo.com Thu May 23 08:06:55 2002 From: anglinsbees at yahoo.com (anglinsbees) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 08:06:55 -0000 Subject: Rowling and Tolkien (Longbottom) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39017 Good mornin folks! I searched the archives, and didn't find anything about this.... I have been rereading "The Two Towers" again, and noticed something that had my jaw hanging open- "Longbottom" was the name of the Hobbit who first introduced pipeweed to the shire- and he was famous for his gardens and get his herbs! I wonder if Rowling had this in mind when she named Neville,a nd gave him a talent for herbs? There are so many similarities between Tolkien and the Harry Potter world- the obvious ones such as Gandalf/ Dumbledore, Peter Pettigrew and Gollum (Both groveling whiners, who were placed in the heros debt through acts of mercy. Gandalfs words to Frodo, which he remembers when he decides to spare Gollum as they travel to Mordor are strikingly similar to those Rowling puts in Harry and Dumbledores minds and mouths on the subject of Peter.) Despite the similarities, I cannot help but note the huge differences. (Ron has very little in common with Samwise,lol!) Has anyone noticed and analyzed parelells? While I do think that Peter will have a decisive role in the overthrow of Voldemort, just as Gollum did in the destruction of the ring, I do hope Harry comes through with both hands intact! Ellen A Pottering Beekeeper From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Thu May 23 12:13:00 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (dfrankiswork at netscape.net) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 08:13:00 -0400 Subject: TBAY: Satanic Verses and no-charm Neville Message-ID: <2F8256DC.1D200D96.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39019 David walks up from Theory Bay towards the Canon Museum. The door is open but the building seems deserted. There is a peeling poster by the door advertising a Symposium, now past, about Memory Charmed Neville, in the main Lecture Theatre. David wanders in. The mess! Surely these symposia are meant to be quiet, staid affairs? Look at the state of it! Kool-Aid beakers and curling dried up sandwiches everywhere. Not so much Canon Museum as Shrieking Shack. He gives a pile of old used yellow flags a kick and is surprised when something skitters away across the floor. He picks it up and examines it. It looks like a canon, but it feels like a plastic model. He looks closer, frowning. Surely the symposium was about Neville? How did this get here? Then he chuckles. This is what is written on it: > 3. The reference to Moaning Myrtle having a crush on Harry, also in FB Something seems wrong with the manufacture - it looks like cheap WB tat; you can get it anywhere these days. Then he realises. It's back to front! He walks over to the mirror and holds it up. The writing now says: Harry Potter loves Moaning Myrtle. David chuckles again. If someone had actually *fired* this canon, they would have blown a hole right through their own ship. Someone must have waved it around at the symposium, threatening all the attendees, claiming that they knew where they could get good canons. And they had all swallowed it. None of them had actually *checked*. Who could have got away with such a blatant bluff? Who would profit from the dissemination of this stuff? He is about to throw the canon in the bin when he pauses, a look that is pure Malfoy crossing his pale blond features. There are some ships out in the Bay that could *use* a canon like this. He looks at it again, and then again, puzzled. There is something else wrong with it. Something more subtle. This would require checking with the original. David wanders out of the theatre, wondering, and goes down the corridor. A couple of inconspicuous doors are there, side by side. He pauses briefly at the green one, thinking he should get the canon there for Cindy. But no, there is a Thief's Curse. She will have to get her own. And there is pressing business to attend to anyway. He opens the red door and walks into a dusty schoolroom. A single line of footprints leads to the Jabberknoll cage, which has been forced open and is empty. That will have to wait though. He walks over to a case near the door and gently lifts the lid. A cloud of dust rises from it: nobody has looked at this one in a long time. Delicately, he lifts out the canon there: Harry Potter loves Moaning Myrtle. The same words, but there is the difference. The words 'Moaning Myrtle' have been crossed out. *That* changes everything. There are *possibilities* here. Who wrote these words? More importantly, who crossed them out? How could a canon be *crossed out*? This is amazing. The Canon Museum has its very own Satanic Verses. David looks round nervously. A slight earth tremor shakes the Museum. This is worse than the time Dicentra put her arm clean through the wall into the Outer Void in her argument with Judy and Marina (1). Quickly he whips out his Reed-Rite Rubber (2), ignoring the yellow flag that blows in through the doorway. It tells him: "The handwriting is Ron's". Ron, eh? David muses on possible parallels between Ron and Satan, or is it the satan? Somehow, Ron in a barrister's wig is as unconvincing as Ron in a red outfit with horns and a tail. Hm. He applies the Rubber again. Who crossed it out? No answer. Logically, it had to be Harry himself who crossed them out, but whoever it was has *only* deleted the words 'Moaning Myrtle'. So Harry Potter loves *somebody*, eh? Who? Cho Chang? When was this written anyway? David notes that there are other words on the canon. The Reed-Right Quill tells him they are by Hermione. So *she* had access, too. Could *she* have crossed out the offending words? But then, why would she leave the "Harry Potter loves" bit? What interest could she have in that? What name might she want to substitute for Myrtle's, if she dared? Puzzling, very puzzling. Just then, David's musings are interrupted by a noise upstairs. Somebody is in the building after all. Hastily closing the case he turns and leaves the room and follows the sound to its source. In a corner of the Common Room, he sees Faith (3) riffling through a huge pile of papers, angrily muttering to herself. "What's the matter?" he asks. "Look at this!" she says, "Three huge volumes of Symposium Proceedings. Bigger than many canons. And I get *one* mention. And did I even get a word in edgeways? No! They tell me what I think, but they don't think to *ask*." David circles behind her and reads from Volume 1 of the Proceedings: >It's kind of boring. It doesn't offer nearly as much in the way of thematic complexity. It definitely lacks Bang. But there's just no getting around the fact that it certainly is *plausible.* >And I have this funny feeling that Faith herself probably favors this reading. >Its big drawback, though, is that it fails to account for all of the foreshadowing and emphasis that both memory charms and memory suppression have been given over the course of the past four volumes. David sees what Faith means. But what is this boring thing that lacks Bang? He flips back a few pages: > There is no memory charm, nor any other type of memory suppression. Neville's memory is just fine, really. If it seems at times to be faulty, then that is merely because the poor lad is so preoccupied with dealing with the trauma of his past that it distracts him from concentrating on other matters, like his day-to-day affairs and his schoolwork. A flourish of the Reed-Rite Rubber reveals that all this was written by Elkins. "So, do you disagree with this theory, then, Faith?" he asks. "Weeeell, no... not as such... I do think there isn't a memory charm on Neville. I don't exactly agree that the trauma of the past is distracting him, though. Put yourself in Neville's position. He knows he can sometimes do powerful magic. He knows that his dad was an auror and he probably reckons - may even have been told - that his dad could do powerful magic. He knows where it got his dad. Worse, he knows that his mum, magically speaking not necessarily unusual, also suffered the same fate. He sees it every holiday. He has got through his childhood avoiding all magic as much as possible. He knows in his heart of hearts that he's not a Squib but he's darned if he's going to let his family know. Now he's been sent to Hogwarts, where he will - guess what - learn to do magic. Powerful OWL and NEWT gaining magic. Defence Against the Dark Arts. He is to drink of the potion that has wrecked his and his family's life. So what does he do? In effect, he sulks. He 'forgets' things. he keeps a low profile. He is a nice lad so he is always obliging and friendly. He sticks up for his principles when he must. But - magical power? That's scary. Give it to the vultures. "The funny thing is, Elkins pretty much said the same thing herself not long ago. Prince Renunciate or something, she called it, but that's what it was about. So, I reckon that his memory's fine, but he doesn't have any particularly traumatic memories of torture - he probably wasn't there - he is just avoiding magic where he can. I grant you, it need not be conscious: he's not acting - it's just his aversion to all that magical heritage that pushes his conscious mind away from things he ought to remember all the time - passwords, timetables, potion recipes, missing steps and so on." Faith pauses and David takes the opportunity to ask, rather nervously: "But what about all that foreshadowing? Memory charms right, left, and centre. Dazed Lockhart, tortured Bertha, that guy at the World Cup, trained Obliviators. Isn't it a bit naive to ignore all that evidence?" In a controlled, low voice she replies: "Look at me. I'm Faith. I'm *supposed* to be naive. It took *years* of hard work to become this naive. I stand for straightforward common-sense interpretation of the text as it stands. So what if Lockhart used Memory Charms. That was what he did. It doesn't mean a thing one way or the other for Neville." She gives David a withering look, and goes on in a rising voice: "Surely you're not proposing that Neville defeated some Ruritanian vampire as a toddler and Lockhart stole his story and charmed him! ("No, no, of course not!") The link between Memory Charms and Neville is purely in the minds of all those sailors out there. Have they got a single canon to support it? It's not even circumstantial evidence. You'll be telling me next that Lockhart and Jorkins are mere fictional constructs, manipulated by a mythical author figure to put Memory Charms in our minds when we are told Neville is forgetful! What sort of speculation is that?" As she calms down, David glances nervously at the door, swallows, and says, almost in a whisper: "But what about the Bang? What about the thematic complexity?" "Not my problem. If they want Bang and angstiness and convoluted themes, that's up to them. But Prince Renunciate sounds pretty thematic to me, anyway." She shifts closer to David. He edges away and she follows, saying quietly: "But think about it. Who *wants* Bang anyway? Sure, it's a great thrill at the beginning, the first time you try out your new canon. But for a life partnership? To use over and over again? The second time round, Bang is just, well, Boring. You've seen the catwalk. You've felt the heat of the lava. You know now who dies, who survives, and who seems to die but turns out to be the other guy on Polyjuice. What you need is a good story with depth. Bang and its echoes will pass. A good story well told will remain. Think about it" David seems distinctly unhappy with the turn the conversation is taking. Life partnership? What is she talking about? To distract her he gets out the canon from the room with the red door and shows it to her. "What do you think of this?" "I'd put that back if I were you. It carries a Thief's Curse. But since you ask, Ron wrote it, Harry crossed it out." "Yes, but why only Moaning Myrtle's name?" She shrugs. "Why should Harry bother? He doesn't like the mention of Myrtle - he knows it's a bit near the bone. She can go through walls - who knows if she might read it secretly? But it's only a graffito by Ron. It's no big deal. Nobody, surely" - another withering look - "is going to try to *analyse* this, are they? Give me a break." David decides not to press the point. But he does want to know this: "Doesn't the fact that it's crossed out undermine our conception of canon? Are the words 'Moaning Myrtle' canon, or not?" She sighs "Give me strength! Save me from these anal lardbottoms! Look, when Hagrid says all dark wizards come from Slytherin, that's canon, right? But do we believe him? No, we weigh it up. It's canon that Hagrid *said* that, and we can't dispute that. But whether what he said is a true statement about the Potterverse, is debatable until kingdom come, or OOP, whichever is sooner, and I'm not taking bets. Same with this. It's canon that Harry's schoolbook contains these words *and* the crossing out. But what they *mean* - that's interpretation. You can debate that forever." David thinks that this last rather contradicts her earlier comment about people trying to analyse it, but decides that now might not be a good time to mention it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- (1) See message 38392: > if Hogwarts were operating in the Real World, you could certainly argue that Dumbledore's little drama was in poor taste at best, a tactical error at worst. But as part of the Potterverse? It's only a mistake if it was written that way. > --Dicentra, tugging down her sleeves and going to wash the spit off her hands (2) Translator's note: A rubber in British English is known as an eraser in the United States. Sometime, somebody should explain what banging means in British English, too. (3) Faith's backstory can be found at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin%20Files/hypotheticalley.htm#faith __________________________________________________________________ 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 naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu May 23 13:57:52 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 13:57:52 -0000 Subject: TBAY: The Night The Jabberknoll Screamed In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39020 [Sorry for the double post. The first lacked the proper references.] Debbie quoted Cindy and Barb: >But the Imperius Curse doesn't work, does it? That's because Frank > and his wife have *no idea* where Voldemort is. > > Barb Purdom raised a similar point: > > >> The information that was being sought, as I understand it, was the >> whereabouts of Voldemort. Inasmuch as the Longbottoms probably >> didn't possess this information (why did anyone think they did? >> were they on the scene at Godric's Hollow soon after he tried to >> kill Harry and failed?) they couldn't very well give up what they >> didn't know. > And then said: Why wouldn't Frank have the information? I'm not sure why so many people assume the Longbottoms knew nothing about Voldemort's whereabouts. Dumbledore makes the following statement near the end of the Pensieve chapter: "Bertha Jorkins has vanished without a trace in the place where Voldemort was certainly known to be last." This indicates to me that there was ongoing activity after the fall of Voldemort to keep apprised of his whereabouts to prevent exactly the sort of Find and Revive expedition Lestrange & Co were planning. Frank Longbottom could certainly have been >part of that effort. Naama: I should say that not only is it probable that there was a search after Voldemort, but that it is highly IMprobable that there wasn't. Think of Osama Bin Laden. His organisation is destroyed (one would hope), as is the regime that hosted and enabled his activities. Nonetheless, the search continues and will continue for decades, if necessary. Besides the desire for revenge/justice, it is fairly obvious that with his money, connections and fanaticism he is still a very dangerous threat. Why wouldn't the WW be just as capable of this simple thought process? Of course they would assign Aurors specifically for this task ? find out whether Voldemort still exists, if does - find out where he is, find out how to get to him, find out how to destroy him. They must have done that. Dumbledore, for one, would never be so stupidly complacent as not to insist on such a search. Moreover, since the Lestranges and Crouch Jr. seem to be intelligent, high ranking DEs, they wouldn't take that desperate one shot at finding Volemort in a random, haphazard way. They wouldn't have picked any Auror. They would take an Auror that they *know* is on the Voldemort finding task force. (Crouch Jr. could easily find who those Aurors are through his father and his connections.) In fact, using the same argument, I'd say that they wouldn't have attacked Frank unless they thought he actually knew something. Why would they? They had waited quietly for several years, why expose themselves at that specific time, unless they had reason to believe that Frank had come up with some crucial piece of information. It doesn't make sense that these clever people (clever enough to "talk themselves out of Azkaban") would attack if they weren't reasonably sure that Frank actually had the information they needed. It's not as though they were engaged in some sweeping Auror torturing project. It was a focused, targeted operation, taken at great risk to themselves. An action taken on a specific person, at a specific time, and, taking into account their intelligence and ability to wait, it is highly unlikely that either person or time were selected at random. All this, of course, doesn't prove that Frank was in possession of crucial information. The rumour they had heard may simply have been wrong. But how unBangy is that?! To have all this torturing and suffering, hints and drama ? and no important secret to be finally revealed? That would be flat indeed. The only real problem with assuming that Frank did in fact have important information, is the going crazy part. Would he really hold on to the secret to the point of going insane under torture? I hypothesized (sounds better than "wildly speculated", doesn't it? ) the Lunatic charm which, a little like the Fidelius charm, hides a secret inside a person, so that the moment the person is willing to divulge the secret, s/he goes insane. Elkins flew a Yellow Flag over that one, I believe. But, still, isn't it a bit strange that with all the Cruciatus curses we've encountered, we've never had any indication that Cruciatus causes insanity? As far as I remember, when Harry is hit with a Cruciatus, the description of what he felt doesn't include "Harry thought that if this continues one second longer, he would go mad", or something like it (right? I don't have the books here). If I'm correct, then it's fair to assume that something else (or in addition) caused the Longbottom's insanity. Besides all of which, Frank had to know something, so that Neville could know something, so that he can be under a Memory Charm, so that he could eventually reveal that secret, and help save the world!! What could be more Bangy than that, huh? Naama From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Thu May 23 14:17:38 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 14:17:38 -0000 Subject: Ron's Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39021 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ellaenchanted87" wrote: > As I'm fairly new here I'm not sure if this is a topic you've > covered here before, but it suddenly occured to me that, according > to the "rules" Ms. Rowling has set up about the world of wizards, > Ron should not have been able to inherit his wand from one of his > older siblings (from which one, I'm not sure as I haven't got the > book here in front of me). When Harry was buying his wand at > Ollivander's, Mr.Ollivander > himself told him that "the wand chooses the wizard," and not the > other way around. How, then, was Ron able to manage with that old > hand-me-down wand of his? (I suppose one could argue that Ron > WASN'T in fact able to use it properly, and that this might be the > cause of some of the "mishaps" that he experienced in his first > several years at Hogwarts, such as the belching-up-slugs incident, > but I'm not sure I agree with that.) > Sincerely, > Ella :) I have often discussed the "Reality Rules" that JKR has stablished for her world and, as you already guessed, this question has been discussed before. But I don't mind. New imput is always welcome. If not, our views tend to stale. And we wouldn't like that. Anyway, my own theory on the matter is that, even if Olivanders is THE main expert in wands in Britain (or the whole world, for that matter), he is, nonetheless, a bit of a loon, and holds some rather strange (and scientifically and even magicaly improvable) theories. The "wand choosing the wizard" seems, in my opinion, one of those pet theories (like a car-seller telling you that "the car chooses the driver", which I've heard, even if semi-joking instead of dead serious). My theory is not well-liked, though, since people tend to prefer the idea of thinking wands for some reason, so feel free to disagree. It does explain why people will happily change wands and accept other people's and USE other people's without turning a hair. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From finwitch at yahoo.com Thu May 23 12:17:35 2002 From: finwitch at yahoo.com (finwitch) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 12:17:35 -0000 Subject: Wand components. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39022 Marina replied to Rachel: > Does Sirius even own a wand currently? He had to use other people's > in PoA. Hagrid's wand was broken when he was expelled from Hogwarts, > so I would expect Sirius' would've been broken when he was send to > Azkaban. And it's not like he can just walk into Ollivander's and > pick up a new one, is it? > I would definitely love to know about the other characters you > mention, as well as Snape and Draco. About Sirius -- well, I think Rachel was referring to the wand he had *before* he was sent there. It also *might* be that his wand is currently in the saddlebag of his flying motorcycle. But that no, Sirius doesn't have one (unless he gained it from the saddlebag in book 4, or bought one in where ever he was or even *made* one). Haven't seen him with a wand since he used Snape's in Shrieking Shack in PoA - so it stands to reason he doesn't have one now.. but the one he *did* have... well, if Unicorn Hair refers to transfiguration, that'd be Sirius. (who *does* happen to be animagus). My guess for his wand should he ever gain his freedom: Unicorn hair, Olive Tree, 12 inches. Excellent for transfiguration. Lupin-- special wand made of his *own* werewolf-hair? Or perhaps just unicorn (Mooncalf) hair. 13 inches. I think Draco has a Dragon Heart String as a core. Being *Draco* - Dragon. Mahogany, 11 ? inches. Snape - I think he has Dragon heart-string, too. It sounds like a potion ingredient! Dumbledore - Phoenix Feather (Great Deeds + having a pet Phoenix) Neville... I think he's using a wand of his parent's (what would *they* do with wands in St Mungo's). However, it doesn't suit him at all... He *might* do a lot better if he went shopping at Ollivander's. Ron didn't have much problem with Charlie's - but *both* his wands had *unicorn hair*. If Neville should have Phoenix and Maple and the one he has is unicorn hair and willow, well. (Now really, there must be *some* meaning for Ollivander's comment about results and one's own wand; the other phoenix wand that didn't choose Harry; it *would* explain the Neville's suddenly found control etc.) -- Finwitch From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu May 23 15:18:40 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:18:40 -0000 Subject: The Difference Between TBAY and FF (WAS FF: Speculation; Fanfic is like TBAY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39023 Hana wrote: >Here on this list we have TBAY where people make up all sorts of >anagrams to explain their views, on other lists people write >stories to explain theirs. It's really the same thing in a lot of >ways, just presented in different formats. AV wrote: >And honestly, the TBAY posts differ from fanfic only in writing >style. I hope it's OK if I weigh in with a few thoughts about TBAY versus Fanfic, as the references to TBAY in this discussion really caught my eye. First, a few disclaimers. Everything I'm going to say is simply my own view as a list member. My opinion (and I'll bet we can all agree on this bit) is that people are free to enjoy or not enjoy Fanfic, and people are free to enjoy or not enjoy TBAY. Both TBAY and Fanfic are legitimate ways of enjoying HP. I sense, however, a feeling that TBAY and Fanfic are the same thing. I think there are some important distinctions between TBAY and Fanfic as they pertain to their treatment of canon, and I'd like to spell out my views on those distinctions. I'll start with Penny's post of yesterday: ************ Penny wrote: >Let's continue with the Snape as a Vampire thing, since Amanda used >that example too. Is there substantively any difference at all >between the following? > > (a) Poster A, who writes a really long post citing all the canon evidence that suggests that Snape is a vampire and refuting canon points that suggest he might not be (using sort of an "academic" straight narrative format); > (b) Poster B, who has written a fanfic exploring how Snape became a Vampire, using the same canon evidence that Poster A marshalls to his side in his narrative post; or > (c) Poster C, who takes Poster A's points and manipulates the material into what we're calling a TBAY post > > Obviously, these are 3 different *forms* of writing. They can all >be classed as persuasive writing perhaps -- the objective of all 3 >posters is to convince other readers that Snape *could* be a >vampire. Same objective -- just 3 different ways of arriving at >the same place. I think I understand the argument here, but I can't quite get on board with the idea that TBAY and Fanfic can be equated in quite this way. In my opinion, there's a *big* difference between Examples (a) and (c) versus (b), for purposes of discussion on this list, anyway. The straight narrative format and the TBAY format rely on canon and *only* on canon. Fanfic writing (compared to TBAY) is one step removed from canon in three important ways: 1. Fanfic writers are allowed to make things up. They can make up spells/magical devices/potions/characters/magical beasts ? anything they'd like. Indeed, I think one of the hallmarks of a good fanfic is whether the writer thinks of clever ways to extend the HP world (Magid, the Magid Sword, Marauder's Map Pencils, the Calling of Dark Creatures, to use great examples from one popular Fanfic). I understand that Fanfic writers work very hard to conform their fics to canon. But at the same time, Fanfic writers are not strictly *constrained* by canon. Are TBAY writers allowed to make things up? Well, if you've been following the recent TBAY threads, a TBAY post that makes up something that is not in canon draws a Yellow Flag. And in a straight narrative post on the main list, straying from canon will draw posts that ask "Where did you get that?" That suggests to me that there is a much higher standard for conformity with canon in straight narrative posts and TBAY posts than in Fanfic. Now, I enjoy presenting speculative theories in a TBAY format (although I also do it in straight essay style on occasion). So I can tell you that when one is writing a TBAY post or a straight essay, one most definitely feels the effect of these canon limitations. Indeed, I think "The Night The Jobberknoll Screamed" would make a decent fanfic if you added in a whole bunch of new canon facts. I mean, wouldn't it be nifty if I added some sort of MOM panic button that Frank lunges for as Mrs. Lestrange enters? I mean, that would allow all manner of Aurors to storm the place and would give Mrs. Lestrange a reason to flee before she gets a chance to kill the Longbottoms. I could solve huge gaps in canon (Why weren't the Longbottoms killed?) with that sort of creativity. As a TBAY theory, though, I have to present the Jobberknoll idea using only canon, which is a tough sell, as you can all see. ;-) The ability to cure problems in theories by making things up is a major difference between TBAY and Fanfic, IMO. Turning back to Penny's three examples, then, I'd agree that all three examples describe posts that might share the same *goal* (arguing that Snape is a vampire), but only two (the narrative and the TBAY post) are limited to using the same *tools* because they cannot introduce concepts not contained in canon. 2. The second relevant difference between TBAY and Fanfic is that I believe the *canon analysis* in TBAY posts is more transparent and accessible. By that I mean that the TBAY writer should be *explicit* about the canon basis for everything said and the reasoning that supports each conclusion. I mean, no one has to guess why I think Mrs. Lestrange would have used Imperio on Frank Longbottom ? it is explained in black and white in the post, and we can (and are) debating whether that bit is canonical and logical. Had I written a fanfic, however, there would have been lots of dialogue, movement, description, a climax, new characters and what have you, and it would be much more difficult for the reader to strip out the Imperius assumptions and debate them. In my experience, the Fanfic canon arguments are not presented in the same straightforward way as the TBAY canon arguments are. That makes perfect sense, of course, because the Fanfic writer is (hopefully) working hard to entertain. Now, I imagine that people do debate the canon basis for various parts of fics, but the Fanfics themselves tend not to, in my experience, stop the action and explain the basis for various canon interpretations that form the basis for the Fanfic. Again, there is nothing wrong with the Fanfic way of doing things -- my point is only that TBAY and Fanfic are different. So, despite the paddles flying around, the unsweetened Kool-Aid and the other silliness, TBAY canon arguments are a lot more accessible and easy to evaluate, IMHO. Fanfic, IMHO, is one step further removed from straight canon analysis in that respect, which is another reason I think that TBAY and Fanfic are not the same thing at all. 3. Another difference between TBAY and Fanfic, IMO, is that the talent of the writer is much more important in Fanfic. In other words, whether a Fanfic theory works actually depends *less* on the canon analysis than whether a TBAY theory works, IMHO. A middling Fanfic theory in the hands of a poor writer (someone who struggles with dialogue or description or pacing) will not be persuasive; the very same theory in the hands of a talented writer might be a romping good time and people might buy the theory more because it was presented in such an entertaining and believable manner than because of the strength of the theory itself. With TBAY, all you have are the canon points (laced with silliness like extended metaphors). So, for instance, whether people buy the Jobberknoll theory doesn't depend on whether I write good dialogue for Mrs. Lestrange; it depends on the canon and the logic as applied to the canon. Again, this makes TBAY different from Fanfic in my eyes, anyway. So. What does it all mean? Well, IMO, it doesn't mean TBAY is *better* than Fanfic or *worse* than Fanfic. It just means that TBAY is *different* from fanfic, that's all. Cindy From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu May 23 16:36:54 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:36:54 -0000 Subject: The Difference Between TBAY and FF (WAS FF: Speculation; Fanfic is like TBAY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39024 Wonderful discussion, and wonderful post, Cindy. I must admit that, after some skepticism, I've come to really like fanfic. Not so much the huge uber-fics about what happened to Harry after school, or how Hermione and Draco's relationship progressed. I finally read Cassandra Claire's "Draco Dormiens" and enjoyed it, but not because I thought it was a reasonable extension of Rowling's universe, but because it was damn funny with the Evil Bake Sales, Lucius Malfoy's bottomless pit, Harry as Draco and Draco as Harry, and Goyle with a picture of Crabbe under his pillow. I don't think it's meant to be taken that seriously. And that's the first point of fanfic. Some of it's there to make you laugh, whether through a dramatic and very funny tale such as Cassandra Claire's or an outright parody, like Firewolf's brilliant "Win Some, Lose Some More." But what I love about fanfic is the character pieces, the short analyises of a character. Tess's "Ghosts I Keep", for example, is a wonderful little piece told from the POV of Barty Crouch Sr. and was the inspiration for my mega post on Crouch. She challenged me to look at the guy differently than I had before. Far from taking me away from canon, the story sent me to canon, where I spent hours catologuing references to Crouch, and came to the conclusion, besides other more important things, that he was dead sexy. :-) And, some stories are just.... well... mindblowing. Emily Anne's "From Out That Shadow", for example, has Snape and Avery as you've never seen them before. (Avery is a sweet little eleven-year old, who stands up to Lestrange, and becomes Severus's best friend.) I don't know if it adds to one's understanding of Snape to read this novel-in-progress, but it's just so good that no-one should resist it. This might cover a lot of fanfic. And, err..., yes, I know I should review the stuff I've been reading.... Sorry to all you authors on the list for not doing so, but I value my internet privacy. Still, I should at least leave reviews as 'Unregistered.' HOWEVER, I do think that FF is, in a way, somewhat dishonest as a method of theory persuasion.. To take the ever popular Cassandra Claire, there is no way that Harry and Draco will discover they have super powers in JKR's universe. That's a great twist in a fanfic, but for some strange reason, some readers have taken this as a likely thing in JKR's universe, because Cassie is such a good writer. I know Cassie herself is the last person to believe this, but it shows that fanfic can persuade people of theories that really aren't possible. Do people really truly convince themselves of out-there theories in theory discussions? I don't really think so. Sure, we love to play with scenarios in which the BAD aurors tortured Frank, then were interrupted by the Penseive Four, minus Crouch Jr. and plus Snape and Lucius Malfoy, who then put a memory charm on Frank, because he really was a Death Eater, after all, and left Neville alive because Neville is going to be the Next Dark Lord and Lucius was sleeping with Gran. But, the nature of the discussion keeps people from forgetting that such scenarios have no canon. If you make up something new, someone waves a yellow flag. If you leave something else, someone brings it up. You are continually questioned, however creative and colourful your props. > Indeed, I think "The Night The Jobberknoll Screamed" would make a > decent fanfic if you added in a whole bunch of new canon facts. I > mean, wouldn't it be nifty if I added some sort of MOM panic button > that Frank lunges for as Mrs. Lestrange enters? I mean, that would > allow all manner of Aurors to storm the place and would give Mrs. > Lestrange a reason to flee before she gets a chance to kill the > Longbottoms. I could solve huge gaps in canon (Why weren't the > Longbottoms killed?) with that sort of creativity. You know, you should go over to Fiction Alley and ask if someone would take a jab at writing it. The moment I read your post, Cindy, I was thinking "What a great fanfic!" Eileen From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 23 16:41:52 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 16:41:52 -0000 Subject: Ron's reactions/SHIP/FF: sleuthing couples In-Reply-To: <00e101c20209$02eccdb0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39025 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > My point really is this: Ron's mind does work differently than either Harry or Hermione. And, that's an Okay Thing. It doesn't have to be a slam on him; there are plenty of other things he can do with his life if he's not cut out to be an auror after all. But if H&H honestly have a talent that he doesn't have but wants, I think we can expect to see Ron's green monster rear its ugly head again. I also think I still go with the surface level read & conclusion that Ron is set apart from Harry & Hermione; I think this is a bit of foreshadowing or a red flag if you will. Just my opinion of course -- > Oh I expect to see some more inter-Trio confict, too, including the permutations we haven't seen yet. Among these are [Ron,Hermione] vs Harry and [Harry, Hermione] vs Ron. I am sure JKR's been saving those for us because they'll be more interesting with boy/girl tension going on than they would have been in the earlier books. I am not sure Harry's mind always works more like Hermione's than like Ron's, though. I think he uses both styles. There are certainly times, such as when he stabs the Diary with the fang, when the right idea just comes to him. Just my opinion of course.:--) ? Pippin: <<<<<<>>>>> Penny: >>>>It's been done already ... though with Harry & Hermione (not Ron and Hermione).You've heard of "Paradigm of Uncertainty"? [admits she hasn't ever heard of Anne Perry .... but thinks this idea's been done]<<<<< I am thoroughly flattered by any comparison to PoU, but I don't think it applies. Surely you don't mean to imply that an R/H dynamic would be the same as an H/H dynamic, or why ship at all ? Happy families may be all alike, if you believe Tolstoy, but sleuthing couples can be quite different. Nick and Nora Charles aren't like Harriet and Peter Wimsey, are they? (Further discussion of sleuthing couples to OT-Chatter) Pippin From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu May 23 18:17:35 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:17:35 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Satanic Verses and no-charm Neville In-Reply-To: <2F8256DC.1D200D96.6E93A4F5@netscape.net> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39026 Cindy sits at her lonely booth, having stenciled "Jobberknolls Rock!" onto the awning in a desperate effort to drum up support. Her hunger grows as the afternoon wears on, leaving her a bit light- headed. When the Symposium ended, Elkins had hastily gathered the leftover snacks and stuffed them into her sand-filled rucksack. The Kool-Aid had long ago evaporated, leaving a powdery substance at the bottom of each pitcher. The janitors are cleaning the tremendous mess strewn wall-to-wall in the Meeting Room, their vacuum cleaners humming. When they leave, Cindy peers inside to listen in on a conversation between a distinguished-looking Brit and a schoolgirl wearing heels that are just a bit too high. *************** David (squabbling with Faith about her insistence that Neville has No Memory Charm At All) wrote: > "So, do you disagree with this theory, then, Faith?" he asks. > > "Weeeell, no... not as such... I do think there isn't a memory >charm on Neville. I don't exactly agree that the trauma of the >past is distracting him, though. Put yourself in Neville's >position. He knows he can sometimes do powerful magic. He knows >that his dad was an auror and he probably reckons - may even have >been told - that his dad could do powerful magic. He knows where >it got his dad. Worse, he knows that his mum, magically speaking >not necessarily unusual, also suffered the same fate. He sees it >every holiday. He has got through his childhood avoiding all magic >as much as possible. He knows in his heart of hearts that he's not >a Squib but he's darned if he's going to let his family know. Now >he's been sent to Hogwarts, where he will - guess what - learn to >do magic. Powerful OWL and NEWT gaining magic. Defence Against >the Dark Arts. He is to drink of the potion that has wrecked his >and his family's life. So what does he do? In effect, he sulks. >He 'forgets' things. he keeps a low profile. He is a nice lad so >he is always obliging and friendly. He sticks up for his >principles when he must. But - magical power? That's scary. Give >it to the vultures. You know, this No Memory Charm At All theory has some superficial appeal. For one thing, it is neat and clean. There are no messy loose ends here. Neville is just Neville. He has weaknesses just like other characters have weaknesses. In Neville's case, he is motivated by Fear of Power and Fear of Magic. You don't even have to get into whether Neville witnessed his parents' torture. There's a certain logic there. And a certain appeal. There really is. No, where Faith gets into trouble (and yes, strays from canon) is that Faith would have us believe that things happen in HP for no real reason pertinent to important plot developments. Neville has a Toad for no real reason. He is forgetful for no real reason. He is competent in only one subject for no real reason. He is shaken after meeting with Crouch Jr. for no real reason. Snape is his greatest fear for no real reason. That just doesn't work for me. I mean, when JKR includes lots of meaningless details, they aren't for the most part meaningless. No, almost *everything* in HP is there for a reason. She's always including details in one book to set something up in another book, as we all know. David, pressing his advantage, asked Faith: >Isn't it a bit naive to ignore all that evidence?" > In a controlled, low voice she replies: "Look at me. I'm Faith. >I'm *supposed* to be naive. It took *years* of hard work to become >this naive. I stand for straightforward common-sense >interpretation of the text as it stands. Oh, I hate to be so hard on young Faith. She has so much to *learn*. I mean, I'm sure she'll grow up to make someone a wonderful Trophy Wife someday. But Faith's approach would have us miss so much of the foreshadowing about HP. Look at her track record, for one thing. Faith figured that Scabbers was just a rat. She figured Sirius gave Hagrid a motorcycle just to be a nice guy. Faith figured that Harry and Ron used Polyjuice because that really was the best way to eavesdrop on Malfoy. Oh, Faith is going to miss out on so *much* if she keeps this up. David, listening quietly as Faith rants about how she gets on fine without any Banging at all: >Who *wants* Bang anyway? Sure, it's a great thrill at the >beginning, the first time you try out your new canon. But for a >life partnership? To use over and over again? The second time >round, Bang is just, well, Boring. Oh, that Faith. She really has perfected that "Naive" thing she likes to do. Someone needs to explain to Faith that once JKR has Banged in a certain way, she is never allowed to Bang in that fashion ever again. JKR cannot have another Animagus-Based or Polyjuice-Based Bang. It would never, ever work. As Faith correctly says, repetitive Banging is really boring. No, JKR must Bang completely differently in OoP. That may well be the hold-up in getting the book finished. David, you brought Faith in here. *You* explain it to her. ***************** Cindy wanders back out into the hall and counts her MATCHINGARMCHAIR brochures. Sadly, all 4,110 of them are still there. Cindy considers. David probably cannot be easily shoved into a MATCHINGARMCHAIR, although it might be fun to try. No, what David really needs is a *boat* of his very own. Something large enough for his Memory Charm theory and his Harry/Myrtle SHIP. Cindy scans the Bay. She considers and rejects the idea of giving David the Hovercraft. Elkins, the Veteran Fourth Man Captain, lost control of that Hovercraft in no time at all. It is hardly suitable for a newcomer, and besides, it is starting to smell. But there is the unoccupied 8-man inflatable raft. Yes, that might be perfect! Cindy strides over the inflatable raft, which has begun to go flat from lack of use. Increasing her own feeling of lightheadedness, Cindy blows vigorously into it. She checks the ice chest, which is still loaded with ice-cold mimosas. She beckons David to his new raft and hands him his very first Paddle, courtesy of Dicey: @------((() *********** Cindy ************* Glossary: Banging -- Identifying or developing explosive plot elements. So just get your minds out of the gutter. **************** For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin% 20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From divaclv at aol.com Thu May 23 15:56:53 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 15:56:53 -0000 Subject: Rowling and Tolkien (Longbottom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39027 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "anglinsbees" wrote: (snip) > There are so many similarities between Tolkien and the Harry Potter > world- the obvious ones such as Gandalf/ Dumbledore, Peter Pettigrew > and Gollum (Both groveling whiners, who were placed in the heros > debt through acts of mercy. Gandalfs words to Frodo, which he > remembers when he decides to spare Gollum as they travel to Mordor > are strikingly similar to those Rowling puts in Harry and > Dumbledores minds and mouths on the subject of Peter.) I've heard Peter compared with Wormtongue as well: insinuated self into good guy's camp, toadys to abusive bad guy, generally weak and cowardly but with potential for real malice, etc. (Peter's nickname of "Wormtail" is phonetically similar, as well) > Despite the similarities, I cannot help but note the huge > differences. (Ron has very little in common with Samwise,lol!) Has > anyone noticed and analyzed parelells? While I do think that Peter > will have a decisive role in the overthrow of Voldemort, just as > Gollum did in the destruction of the ring, I do hope Harry comes > through with both hands intact! I think JKR and JRRT tend to parallel each other (or seem to) because they both write in the same archetypes: the Everyman (or Everykid) hero, internal and external good-vs-evil struggles, references to myth/folklore/Bible/etc. Similarities are bound to crop up from time to time. ~Christi From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Thu May 23 17:58:44 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 17:58:44 -0000 Subject: Coherence II (long) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39028 Thanks, David. That was a really thought-provoking post. The following thoughts are based on what I know of 'Golden Age' detective stories and how I *think* JKR is using the techniques of that genre. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > I got rather more replies to my coherence post than I expected - the > reverse of the usual situation. > > I just want to pick up on two points: to refine what I mean about > coherence from book to book, and to discuss the mother's love thing > in particular. > > Much of what I wrote was merely autobiographical - I was trying to > explain where I am coming from, particularly the type of books I read > that might seem to be precursors to HP. Quite simply, I have had in > the past a very low expectation of authors' willingness to create a > consistent universe. Like Pippin, I expect my background to be > distinctly impressionistic: perhaps there is a discussion to be had > there about the tension between archetypal and detective-story, as > well as novelistic, characters. (J.I.M. Stewart, aka Michael Innes, > has written on the problem that detective authors face with > characterisation: the better drawn their characters, the less > psychologically plausible it is to keep them all equally suspect up > to the final denouement.) Anyway, I am quite happy to concede that > there is a clear developmental arc for the main characters that is > intended to be present from the beginning (Finwitch's point), and > that there are clearly signalled 'problems' (such as why Voldemort > attacked Harry, why Snape flip-flopped into and out of DEism, what > exactly was going on when James rescued Snape) awaiting a later book > for resolution. There are also blanks awaiting filling in, for > example, did Lily have no friends at school? > > What I remain to be convinced of is that there are *clues* which make > no sense in terms of the book they are in, but do make sense in a > later book. I think there is going to be a problem with that one, simply because JKR seems to be following a 'Agatha Christie style' model. [I do *not* mean that she is 'copying' Christie, merely that I think I've recognised some of the techniques as similar] This means that the *clues* we are given *will* make perfect sense in terms of the book they are in: however, their actual meaning may be a complete reversal of their apparent meaning, and they will almost certainly not *look* significant. > > > I don't count simple foreshadowings such as Harry's Parseltongue, > because they are not mysterious - we just assume in PS with Harry > that it's a wizard thing to talk to snakes. In fact, Harry's Parseltongue is a brilliant example of 'hide the clues in plain sight'. The clues we are given in PS/SS are: Harry can talk to a snake, apparently in English. Harry cannot do this with any other animal - not even Hedwig. No other wizard is seen talking to any animal - they can't even speak to their familiars. No animal is magically made to talk. Slytherin's symbol is a snake. Lord Voldemort went to Slytherin. Harry defeated Lord Voldemort; something no other wizard could do. At this point we should be asking 'can Harry do anything else that no other wizard can do?' But we don't. Of course, *I* spotted these clues immediately... well, on the second reading.... well, after I read CoS... ok, then, last night [shuffles feet]. >The trouble with these > is that *any* apparently innocuous statement can be one of those. > The name of a Sorted pupil, the fact that Mr Jordan is owed money by > Bagman, that fact that the statue of Boris the Bewildered has his > gloves on the wrong hands (one of my all time favourite lines), ad > infinitum. > > GOF is apparently full of such clues or puzzles Again, that's a classic Christie technique. We're 4/7th's of the way through the mystery, and at this stage should now have enough red herrings to open a fishmongers.:-) The problem is going to be spotting which *clue* is a real clue. IMO, it's also half the fun. > > So, a challenge for you all: find something in an early book which is > a puzzle that is resolved in a later one. I repeat, I am *not* > talking about mere foreshadowings, I am talking about mysteries, and > I am *not* talking about mysteries that have been clearly presented > as such. I mean clues that with some thought and luck might have > given the reader help in cracking the puzzle in the later book. > Pippin's found another one: >>How about the cabbage smell in Mrs. Figg's house? That's >>mentioned in Book One, and doesn't seem magical until we find >>out about the resemblance between Perkin's tent and Mrs. Figg's >>furnishings at the World Cup. Then an "Arabella Figg" turns out >>to be one of the old crowd, and JKR awarded a "well-spotted" to >>the person who connected her with Harry's Mrs. Figg in a chat. which is a terrific example of clues spreading over more than one book. We also get clues about Scabbers true nature in PS/SS. Wizards and witches can turn into animals (and we don't actually *need* to know this until Book Three). Scabbers is Percy's *old* rat. Ron can't make a transforming spell work on Scabbers (and we're told this twice). In Book Two, the clue is that Scabbers is still around; and in Book Three, in case we've missed this (or don't know how long pet rodents live) JKR sportingly explains that rats usually live two to three years. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ------------------------------------ > > The Voldemort mysteries. >It is a > commentary on Voldemort's dumb evil overlordness that he swallows > this twice, once as Riddle, again at rebirthing. One would hope that > a really consummate villain would at least say "Hang on, that can't > quite be right... Never mind, let's get on with the Aveda Keadvra- > ing, it's so much more fun than figuring out exactly what > happened..." and it would, IMO, give the reader a little bit more > chance to see that some misdirecting is going on. Ah, yes, Lord Voldemort is Ever So Evil...but stupid. He's a truly stereotyped Evil Overlord. He even has some traditional incredibly dumb followers. And he uses that good old chestnut of 'I will kill him! He is mine!' It is possible that JKR has found she's *had* to stick to the stereotypical Evil Overlord, simply because in real life, Evil Overlords with some brains unfortunately tend to require major wars killing millions of people to dislodge them (Hitler), or even more unfortunately die in their beds whilst still in power (Stalin). Threatening them with a teenage boy is seldom effective.;-) However, another Christie technique is to create stereotyped characters, then use our expectations of the stereotype to misdirect us. JKR uses this in PS/SS, where we suspect Snape because he fits the villain stereotype, and she uses it in GoF where we don't suspect Fake!Moody because he fits the 'tough cop with rough exterior but inner heart of gold' stereotype. Most importantly, IMO, is that in CoS, Voldemort uses this technique himself - Tom Riddle presents *himself* as the stereotypical poor-but-brave-orphan-who-couldn't- *possibly*-be-evil. Did he genuinely expect to kill Harry? Or was he just trying to see how strong he actually was? After all, it's hardly to Voldemort's disadvantage if his major enemy believes he's as thick as a brick, is it? > I think the problem with this is that, to be satisfactory, > misdirection should be of the kind that on re-reading makes us say > that we should have spotted the answer all along. > David We Have Been Warned. JKR has told us in interviews - Things Are Not What They Seem. Even if people only read the books, by now we should be looking for misdirection - she's tricked us enough times. Don't believe that what people *say* is true unless you have supporting evidence. Then check the supporting evidence. Don't believe that people are who they say they are. Don't believe that corpses are who we're told they are. Don't believe that people understand what they see. Pip (whose favorite bit of misdirection so far is Dumbledore's reply to Harry in PS/SS, when Harry asks if Snape hates him because he hated his father) From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu May 23 18:52:41 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 18:52:41 -0000 Subject: TBAY - Neville Sacrificed Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39029 She sits there, looking around the place in horror. How did she get here? And why? Who is she? Some-one is coming towards her. Voice: Well, you have to admit. The memory charm worked. Memory Charm? Now what does that remind her of? Well, nevermind. She may have forgotten some horrible little secret to do with Peter Pettigrew and Lily Evans, but she the lost memories seem to highlight something that she had forgotten, something that happened long before. Something about memory. "Do I live here?" she asks the woman. "No. This is the Theory Museum," answers her new friend. "Where do I live?" "The Fourth Man Hovercraft." "What's that?" The woman shakes her head, then asks, "Do you know who I am?" She strains her mind a little. "I don't know who I am either," she replies back. "Nice work, Debbie," comes a very familiar voice. "You just had to apply the BIG BANG principle to real life." "But Cindy, this isn't real life," says the woman named Debbie. "Come on, help me get Eileen back to the hovercraft." "We have a new MATCHINGARMCHAIR raft now," said Cindy. "It was her last request before you obliterated her." "Neville... sacrifice... memory," moans Eileen. "Don't worry about that," said Debbie kindly. "We've got almost all of that figured out." "Tell.... Elkins...." "Elkins Shmelkins," says Cindy rather fiercely. "You know what Elkins said? Have you seen her and her yellow flags? We're through with Elkins. She doesn't even do her share of cleaning up the hovercraft. Her and her memory charms." "Super..." "Super what?" asked Debbie attentively. "Super Neville," said Eileen in a daze. "Elkins doesn't like Super Neville." "You mean the Neville that regains his memory then kicks serious DE butt?" asked Cindy. "Right," said Eileen. "I think I remember.... Of course, I can't remember all the research I did into the theme of memory in literature." "Sheesh," said Cindy. "But Elkins was afraid Neville was going to end up that way as the avenging angel, if I recall correctly. She wants him to Renounce things, doesn't she?" "Things that he can't remember," said Cindy quickly. "Yes. She has said that." A look approaching a glare shows on Cindy's face. "Well, I have a different theory." Cindy and Debbie exchange glances. "Are you sure you're strong enough?" begins Debbie. "Yes. What are the three ways by which a hero can succeed?" "He can conquer!" cried Cindy, her eyes wild with excitment. "He can renounce!" added Debby. "Or he can sacrifice himself," said Eileen quietly. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * If the Longbottoms are, as Elkins has so ably demonstrated, emblematic of the memory theme in the wizarding world, will not their eventual fate be emblematic of the theme's resolution? And, has not JKR basically promised to us that there will be a resolution, that the wizarding world will learn to remember or forget, or whatever it is that JKR thinks they should be doing? Cornelius Fudge, with his dementor escort, will not be here for long. When Arthur Weasley is Minister of Magic (End of Book 7 :-), what will have happened to the Longbottoms? Is there any questions that they must learn to remember/forget? That Frank and his wife must be restored to the world of the living for the sake of the theme? But that's too good to be true, you say. Well.... What do we know about these "unburials," these acts of remembrance? That they come at a price. That they're painful, and yet always productive. Frank revived will, I have no doubt, remember something, perhaps making it redundant and un-bangy to have a secondary Nevile-remembers-something plot, btw. But, what ends a revenge, what puts a stop to that cliche: the never ending cycle of violence? Sacrifice, that's what. From the dawn of human history, it has been understood that sacrifice has this role. Some civilizations try to pawn it off on the old guy, or the little kid. Some see it as symbolic. Others think it's going far enough to sacrifice your possessions. And then, there's a long history of self- sacrifice, from the Livian hero who flung himself into a bottomless pit for Rome's sake, to Christ's crucifixion, to Ron's Chess Game in PS/SS. What do you want to bet that Neville shall eventually be tortured by Cruciatus for a secret? It fulfills two generational parallels. Frank/Neville, connecting the father and son in a way that Gran has not envisioned, and Peter/Neville, both under pressure by Voldemort. And it fulfills the need for sacrifice. Elkins, it would not suit you if Neville killed for his parents' sake, what if Neville was to die for his parents' sake? And that would be, come to think of it, a mirror of Lily's sacrifice for Harry. Eileen From dicentra at xmission.com Thu May 23 20:09:16 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 20:09:16 -0000 Subject: The Difference Between TBAY and FF (WAS FF: Speculation; Fanfic is like TBAY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39030 To Cindy's arguments on the differences between FF and TBAY, I'd like to add the following: Perhaps the most notable difference between TBAY and FF lies in WHO and WHAT is being dramatized. With FF, the characters from the HP universe are dramatized, in exactly the same way they are in canon. With TBAY, the presenter of the theory and the theory itself is dramatized, in a metaphoric universe that does not exist in HP. For example, if you were presenting the Stoned!Harry theory in FF, you would put dialog in the mouth of a reasonable facsimile of Harry Potter, creation of JKR. He would move and speak at Hogwarts, or at the Dursley's, or in any other space that appears or could appear in the HP universe. He would interact with HP characters. On the other hand, Stoned!Harry in TBAY is this dazed kid who can walk on water and who wanders around, speaking directly to the dramatized persona of the presenter of the theory. Stoned!Harry's characteristics derive in part from a play on the word "stoned" and from whatever the theorizer wants Harry to do (usually silly, admittedly). Here's a demonstration: TBAY Harry: "What marvelous acoustics! Here she is, several hundred yards from shore, and yet Dicentra can hear Laura's conversation with poor Stoned!Harry as if they were right next to her. But Dicentra needs to speak with Laura about something Stoned!Harry probably shouldn't hear (again), so she gestures to Laura to toss the snitch across the bay again. Laura does, Stoned!Harry obliges by stumbling off after it, and Dicentra cups her hands around her mouth...." "Laura," she calls. "Remember when you said..." "Dumbledore only created Harry for the *potential* of immortality. The same potential Tom Riddle was born with." Laura nods. "Why do you think Dumbledore created Tom in the first place, if that's what he did? Do you think it had anything to do with defeating Grindelwald in 1945?" "We're pretty sure that Sirius didn't get expelled, because he's allowed to practice magic like anyone else, which means he finished school. That means that Dumbledore gave him a Second Chance. And if anyone should understand Second Chances, it's your beloved Snapey-poo! How dare he continue to condemn Sirius when both of them are 'Redeemed Sinners!' I mean, where does he get off....!" "Dicentra's rant is cut short when Stoned!Harry, curious about the shouting, ambles over, points his wand at Dicentra, and mutters "Petrificus Totalus." Dicentra's entire body immediately goes rigid and she tips over, right into the drink. Stoned!Harry reaches down and grabs her hair before she sinks, holding her face above water, and tows her back toward the Big Bang." The characters in this passage are Dicentra (a theorizer), Laura (another theorizer) and Stoned!Harry (a theory). The space in which they operate is Theory Bay, which does not exist in the HP universe. The dialog (when it's not silly) is a direct exposition of the theories at hand. If at some future point someone wanted to cast aspersions on the validity of the Stoned!Harry theory, the TBAY-er could describe the Stoned!Harry character as sinking into the bay. But Stoned!Harry and Harry Potter are not the same people, glasses, green eyes, messy hair, and affinity for snitches notwithstanding. (I should note that the Stoned!Harry theory itself was elaborated before the character was created.) Here's Stoned!Harry in FF: Harry was determined to end it here, end it now. Voldemort, who was not affected at all by Harry's Reducio spell, narrowed his red eyes. "I'm growing weary of battling you, Harry Potter," he croaked. "I believe it's time for you to die...." Voldemort reached into his robes and pulled out a wand that Harry had never seen before. "Since my wand can't defeat his brother, I'm going to use this one. Good-bye, Harry Potter." Before Harry knew what was happening, Voldemort raised the new wand and shouted, "Avada Kedavra!" Harry heard the rushing sound and saw the green flash. Then everything went black. And then Harry opened his eyes. He couldn't tell how much time had passed, but he seemed to be lying at the same spot where he fell. "See, I always said you were immortal," he heard a familiar voice say. "Albus..." Harry whispered as he struggled to sit up. He turned and saw a fuzzy outline of a man with a long, red beard. "You are the Stone, Harry," he said. "It's what I've been trying to tell you all these years. It's no accident that your father's and mother's animagus forms were what they were..." Harry squinted. Behind Dumbledore's ghost were two shining animals, a stag and a unicorn. ETC. Needless to say, the FF takes much longer to elaborate than the TBAY version, but as you can see, this "Stoned!Harry" is Harry Potter with the addition of the characteristics the theorizer wishes to set forth. There are also other modifications to the canon universe that in TBAY would draw a yellow flag, such as Dumbledore's death, Voldemort's second wand, Lily as animagus, and Harry being on a first-name basis with Dumbledore. Furthermore, the FF passage could be used to demonstrate the theorizer's theory, but it cannot be used to support the argument. The TBAY theory can, because canon is cited as canon and speculation is labeled as such (with myriad qualifiers). Now. I mean only to demonstrate a difference between FF and TBAY. I am not registering an objection to using FF in this forum. If you want to *demonstrate* a theory using FF, go right ahead, as far as I'm concerned. I just can't accept FF as a way to *support* the argument, whereas with a TBAY theory, I will, as long as the theory isn't bristling with yellow flags. --Dicentra, who is not going to write FF about Stoned!Harry, no matter how much you beg me to From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Thu May 23 20:50:23 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 20:50:23 -0000 Subject: The Difference Between TBAY and FF (WAS FF: Speculation; Fanfic is like TBAY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39031 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > To Cindy's arguments on the differences between FF and TBAY, I'd like > to add the following: > > Perhaps the most notable difference between TBAY and FF lies in WHO > and WHAT is being dramatized. Nods sagely. You know, I wonder if TBAY actually convinces people more than a straight-out theory? Fourth Man was meant very seriously, but having Avery hanging about, and people cramming into kayaks, lead many to think we were just joking. In FF, theories are put into believeable backgrounds. In TBAY, theories are surrounded by wildly unbelievable inventions. Whereas FF lulls a reader's resistances to sleep, TBAY flaunts things which will cause resistance. > Now. I mean only to demonstrate a difference between FF and TBAY. I > am not registering an objection to using FF in this forum. If you > want to *demonstrate* a theory using FF, go right ahead, as far as I'm > concerned. I just can't accept FF as a way to *support* the argument, > whereas with a TBAY theory, I will, as long as the theory isn't > bristling with yellow flags. Demonstrating a theory from FF is, of course, well..... I've been thinking about fanfiction's function awhile, and I don't really think you can demonstrate a theory through FF. What you are doing instead is showing how a theory could work. I don't see Draco and Hermione in canon, so a well-written Draco and Hermione story would not convert me. However, suppose that one day - horror of horrors! - I say to myself - not likely - you know, Harry/Hermione is actually quite possible in canon. Being an R/Hr shipper, I would not be extensively thrilled. However, if I saw the possibility in canon, a well-written H/Hr fic might bring me around to *liking* the SHIP, and thus supporting it wholly. But a well-written H/Hr fic won't do the trick until I see any canon evidence for that SHIP. Do you get what I'm saying? > --Dicentra, who is not going to write FF about Stoned!Harry, no matter > how much you beg me to The moment I saw Stoned!Harry, I remembered this fic over on the Sugar Quill called "Chain Smoking Harry." It took me a long while to figure out what Stoned!Harry really was about. Eileen From lupinesque at yahoo.com Thu May 23 21:35:11 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 21:35:11 -0000 Subject: Opening For a Gryffindor Chaser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39032 Eclipse wrote: > > I hadn't realised this until I was thinking about > > it the other day. Angelina Johnson is a chaser for the > > Gryffindor team. In Goblet of Fire she says that she > > put her name in the goblet. This means that she is a > > seventh year and is done with her schooling at the end > > of the book. This means that there is an opening for a > > chaser as well as keeper on the Gryffindor team. > > Seanmulligan wrote: > I think that Angelina is a sixth year like the Weasley twins. She > just has a birthday late in the year, but she started the year at age > 16 Cedric is 17 in time for the Goblet of Fire, but he is only in his sixth year. PA 8 describes him as a fifth-year student (it's when Harry is alone in the common room, having been awoken early by Peeves the day of the Hufflepuff match). So some students turn 18 at the start of their 7th year, even though Harry will only be just 17. Still, we don't *know* the years of all (any?) of the Chasers, so there could be a spot. Eclipse, are you thinking of trying out for it? Amy Z way too uncoordinated to be anything but a fan From skelkins at attbi.com Thu May 23 21:58:01 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 21:58:01 -0000 Subject: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR: the Debate Rages On (WAS: Yellow Flags and Jobberkno In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39033 In a darkened lecture hall deep within the bowels of the Canon Museum, the battle rages on. Elkins, pale and drawn with exhaustion, wipes her brow with a retracted yellow flag. Cindy reclines in her seat, Zwieback and juice box at her side, Big Paddle at the ready. The hiss from the nearby steam tunnels blends imperceptibly with the sound of Eloise's snores. ****************** "Let's tackle the Egg first," Cindy offers. "What's the problem there?" Elkins, her voice hoarse and cracked from so many hours of uninterrupted speaking, leans heavily against the podium. She raises her glass to take a sip of water, only to discover that she ran out *hours* ago. She places the glass back down on the lectern. She sighs. "The problem with the Egg," she repeats wearily. "Right. The problem with the *Egg* is that it sounds like wailing. It sounds like a musical saw. Seamus thinks that it sounds like a banshee. But what it does *not* sound like is a person in pain. Neville thinks that it does. If Neville really could remember his parents' torture, as the Reverse Memory Charm theory suggests, then he wouldn't make that error. Reverse Memory Charm therefore cannot hold. Quod erat effing demonstrandum." Cindy smiles lazily. "Welllll," she drawls, with a kind of ghastly bonhomie. "I have some personal experience in this area. Over the years, I have tortured *many* people within an inch of their lives, and if you go at it *just* right, if you *really* know what you're doing, once they stop saying actual *words* and stop with all the *begging*, they do in fact make this freakish high-pitched squeal that sounds exactly..." Cindy stops abruptly, frowning. A dead silence has fallen over the room. Naama, careful to avoid meeting anyone's eyes, gathers up her things quickly but quietly and moves back towards the emergency exit. Cindy glances at her briefly, then back at Elkins, who has gone a trifle pale. She smiles. "People, people, people!" she laughs. "The Egg is Not A Problem for MATCHINGARMCHAIR." "Um." Elkins fiddles nervously with the papers in front of her. "Um. Yes. Well. I'm, uh, sure that we're all very pleased, Cindy -- really, really very pleased and very, er, *grateful* -- to have been given the opportunity to, uh, learn something new here tonight. But all the same, I really do think that--" "The Egg's wail is described as "the most horrible noise,'" Cindy points out. "'A loud and screechy wailing" like the ghost orchestra at Nearly Headless Nick's deathday party playing musical saws. When Harry opens the Egg in the bathtub, the wailing, screeching sound is described as 'incomprehensible.' When Harry drops it on the stairs, it again is said to sound like 'wailing.'" "Yes." Elkins nods, just a bit too fervently. "Yes, well, all right then. Let's just take a *look* at that word choice, shall we?" "The Egg *wails,*" she agrees. "That is the primary descriptor of the sound that it makes. JKR uses it twice. So where in canon do we see people 'wailing?'" "Well, Hermione wails, doesn't she? She wails quite often. But whenever we see her 'wailing,' it is always a bit of hyperbole that JKR is using to convey her exasperation. She wails when she is objecting to something, or when she is throwing her hands up in the air at the boys' stupidity, or when she is making some despairing comment or other. But one time that she *never* wails? Hermione does not wail when she is in *pain.*" Elkins bangs her palm down on the lectern for emphasis, then winces. "Ow," she mutters. "In fact," she continues, massaging her wrist. "In fact, nobody does. Wailing is just not what people in the Potterverse *do* when they are in pain. It's certainly not what we ever see anyone do under the Cruciatus Curse. Cedric 'yells,' and Harry 'screams,' and Avery 'shrieks.' Pettigrew does a lot of sobbing. But nobody ever *wails.*" "So," she concludes, "while it may indeed be the case that in your, uh, real-life experience, people can indeed be reduced to incomprehensible wailing by, uh, by long-term exposure to excruciating agony, I really do think that in order to evaluate this as a speculation, we need to go by JKR's *own* word choices, and the fact remains that in the Potterverse--" "And what does the cry of the tiny Jobberknoll sound like?" Cindy interrupts hurredly. "'A long scream made up of every sound it ever heard, regurgitated backward.' Gee, that might sound a lot like a horrible noise, a loud and screechy wailing that would be *incomprehensible*." "What?" Elkins stares at her. "What? You...Oh. Oh, right, yes, I see. So Neville's great and glorious Reverse Memory Charm doesn't even lead him to remember his parents being *tortured?* All he's got is this memory of some *bird* being strangled? Oh, yeah." She snorts. "That's *very* exciting, Cindy. Real Bangy." "The Egg's screeching," Cindy continues, through gritted teeth. "The Egg's *screeching* sounds to Neville just like the death scream of the Jobberknoll. No wonder poor Neville likens it to the sound of someone being tortured! The Jobberknoll death rattle is what Neville is reacting to in that scene in GoF, not the actual cries of his parents, which would be *plenty* comprehensible." "You just said yourself that they *wouldn't* be comprehensible!" objects Elkins. "Not five *minutes* ago, Cindy. You said that..." She shakes her head. "Oh, for God's sake. This is just ludicrous. Right. Okay. So what's your answer to the Dementor problem, then? 'Cause I gotta tell you, I just can't *wait* to hear this one." Cindy narrows her eyes at this, but when she speaks, her tone is remarkably civil. "Ah," she says. "That's not a problem either, because that is exactly as it should be. I challenge the premise that Neville should have a more severe reaction than Harry. Neville watched his parents tortured, not killed. He still goes to see them. And nothing in canon suggests that Neville's life was ever in danger that night." Elkins stares. Her mouth opens and shuts soundlessly, making her look for all the world like one of those salt-water carp which can occasionally be found stranded at low-tide in the rocky pools of Theory Bay. "Harry and Ginny react more than Neville to the dementor on the train," concludes Cindy cheerfully, "because they both survived near- death experiences at the hands of Voldemort, whereas Neville merely witnessed an atrocity." "I...I...I..." Elkins shakes her head rapidly, like a dog shaking off water. "I..." She takes a very deep breath. "ARE YOU COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR *MIND*?" she shrieks, seemingly oblivious to the fact that she has just slipped into one of her very least favorite aspects of JKR's chosen idiom. "WHAT ARE YOU *TALKING* ABOUT? ARE YOU *INSANE?* YOU THINK THAT A COUPLE OF ABRUPTLY-CUT OFF SCREAMS AND A RUSHING NOISE AND A FLASH OF GREEN LIGHT IS A WORSE MEMORY THAN--" "Nah." Cindy grins. "The Dementor on the train is no trouble. No trouble at all. So . . . will you convert, Elkins? A deal's a deal, right?" "Con..convert?" splutters Elkins. "*Convert?* On the basis of *those* arguments? On the basis of those, those ridiculous displays of...of, of, of, of *sophistry,* of pure and utter...you can...you think that I'm actually going to..." Elkins stops suddenly, her mouth still open. She blinks, twice. Then she begins to laugh. She collapses over her podium, giggling hysterically. Cindy, suspicious, narrows her eyes. "Oh!" gasps Elkins, at length. "Oh, yes. Yes, yes. I see. Dear Cindy." She shakes her head. "Cindy, Cindy, Cindy." Cindy stops gnawing on her Zwieback. She wipes the sodden cracker from her lips, frowning. "It's all *right,* Cindy," Elkins tells her. "It's okay. I really do think I understand. But you know, it's not the end of the world when this happens. Really it's not. It's very simple, really. All you need to do here is to say these four little words. That's all. Four words. 'I.' 'Concede.' 'The.' 'Point.' It really doesn't *hurt,* you know, to say those four little words. Trust me: I ought to know. Heaven knows I've said them often enough myself. And besides," she adds, apparently not noticing the dangerous throbbing that has started up in the vein in Cindy's right temple. "You didn't really want to run with that Reverse Memory Charm thing anyway, you know. I mean, sure, it was kind of cute and all, but even aside from the fact that it was canonically indefensible on far less subtle grounds, it wasn't even ever all that Bangy, now, was it?" Cindy stares at her. Her knuckles whiten on her paddle. "What?" she whispers. "What did you just say to me?" "The Reverse *Memory* Charm," Elkins repeats helpfully. "It was actually never all that Bangy to begin with. It didn't offer any opportunities for a Great Character-changing Catalyst, or for a Shocking Revelation, or for a Mind-Blowing Plot Twist, or for an Oscar-worthy Cinematic Moment, or *any* of that. In fact," she concludes. "In fact, I don't think that the Reverse Memory Charm ever belonged on the Big Bang Destroyer at all. I say that it's a *Dud,* and should be stowed away in the hold until it can prove its merit." There is a brief silence. "Oh lord," Debbie murmers, and slides down very low in her seat. Avery, sitting next to her, nods grimly to himself and Disapparates. "What," Cindy demands, her voice pitched dangerously low. "Is the meaning of this? Did I hear *correctly*? Is this an ill-conceived *mutiny* on the Big Bang Destroyer? A blatant attempt to throw the Captain into the brig, MATCHINGARMCHAIR and all?" "Well, actually," Elkins begins. "Technically, you know, Cindy, since I don't think that I was ever actually a crew-member of the Big Bang destroyer, I don't really think that this can properly be called a--" "It has come to this, has it? This challenge -- from the Captain of the Fourth Man Hovercraft of all things! The Hovercraft that is in such bad condition, such disrepair, that it is *coated* in foul seagull droppings. The Hovercraft that has been left to drift, rudderless, as Judy, Debbie and even Eileen's *brother* attempt to capsize it just for the sport of it?" Elkins recoils as if slapped. Two spots of red appear high on her cheekbones. "Oh, now, *hey*!" she objects indignantly. "Hey, now, come on. I mean, just hold *on.* You know perfectly well that I couldn't possibly have gone anywhere near that hovercraft, not back then, not with all of those canonical villains still out there gunning for me and Avery. Didn't you read message #36675? I mean, I was a marked *woman,* Cindy. Surely you didn't honestly expect me to hang around just waiting for trouble? And besides, it's not as if I hadn't already provided Fourth Man with *plenty* of canon to--" "And now," Cindy sneers. "Now Elkins, the Captain of the pitiful, neglected Hovercraft, dares declare which theories belong on the Big Bang Destroyer?!? Oh, this is far worse than spraypainted graffiti, far worse than the odd seashell tossing, far worse than murdering Pig, Erroll and Hedwig. . . . This time, Elkins has gone *Too Far*!" Cindy launches herself out of her seat. Eloise's pet hedgehog dives under her chair. Naama swings open the emergency exit. Elkins gulps and grips the edges of her lectern, hard. "Oh, wow," says Stoned!Harry, fumbling to prepare his Shield Charm. "Guys, like, maybe you should just chill *out,* yeah? I mean, like, it's only a children's boo--" "Let me tell you something!" screams Cindy, spit flying from the corners of her lips. "I have been Banging since before you were *born*! I am the *Queen* of Banging!" Stoned!Harry starts to giggle idiotically. Elkins closes her eyes, but thankfully, Cindy seems not to have noticed. "Reverse Memory Charm Neville is Bangy if I *say* he is!" she shrieks. "If you *say* he is?" Elkins opens her eyes again. "If you *say* he is?" she repeats incredulously. "What, you're claiming for yourself the right to redefine Bang whenever it suits your purposes now? Bang is no longer a means of evaluating canonical plausibility? It's now a matter of pure personal *preference?* You're...you're what? You're Humpty Dumptying the Bangs?" "Humpty Dumptying the Bangs?" repeats Debbie blankly from her seat. Nobody pays her any mind. "And I can prove it!" yells Cindy, waving her paddle wildly in the air. "What's the future Bang with every one of the Memory Charm Neville variants? Hmmmm? That the Charm will be removed? And? So? What? Neville cries his little eyes out when he finally remembers what happened? He gets a little *snippy* with Gran? He sleeps past noon for a few days? That's it? That's all you've got?" "But, but, but," Elkins objects. "But that's not what Bang *means.* It's...and besides," she continues, her voice now rising to something very like a yell itself. "Didn't you even *listen* to my symposium? Weren't you even paying *attention?* Of *course* they have Bang! They all give you an abrupt character change based on a catalytic plot event! And they're cinematic, too! They're plenty cinematic! Which *precise* cinematic effect you get from the Big Bang all depends on which one you *go* for!" She steps out from behind her podium, brandishing a handful of papers. "Look," she says. "Just look. There's--" "Well, I'll have you know that with Reverse Memory Charm Neville, we get *multiple* Bangs," interrupts Cindy. "We get a huge scene where Harry finally asks Neville about what happened the night the Longbottoms were tortured and Neville tells the whole gruesome tale in excruciating detail." Elkins pauses, half-way down the steps of the platform. Her lip curls in disdain. "Oh," she sneers. "Oh, yes, I *see.* This is now Cindy's idea of Bang, is it? This is the Great and Powerful Captain Cindy's idea of an Exciting Cinematic Moment?" "*Dialogue?*" "Dialogue. A conversation. A *Confessional.* A 'This Time, On Oprah' moment. Ooooooh," Elkins simpers in a high nasty falsetto. "Will Neville and Harry talk about their *feeeeeeeeeeeelings,* Cindy? Will Harry go and make Neville a nice comforting cup of *tea?* Hand him a *hankie,* perhaps? Tell him, 'Oh, Neville, how I feel your pain? For I, too, come from a tragically-broken home, and I too have never known the comfort and support of a warm and loving family?' And then, maybe once they're done with all of that *delving,* they can share a Great Big Hug? And then go on to talk about which *girls* they like, perhaps?" "Pah!" spits Elkins. "Pah! That's not *Bang,* Cindy. That's *girl stuff!* It's a chick flick! It's an after-school special! It's a soap opera! It's a Kaffee Klatsch! It is just plain *Weak,* is what it is. It. Is. A. DUD!" Cindy raises her paddle, snarling, but Elkins snatches it right out of her hands. "Now, a Memory Charm Theory," she says, brandishing the paddle menacingly. "A Memory Charm Theory can give you a *real* Bang. Something cracks Neville's memory charm, and POW! Change! Sudden, abrupt and catalytic *change!* What does Reverse Memory Charm have to offer? Nothing, that's what! No change worthy of being deemed Big and Bangy is *possible* with a Reverse Memory Charm because Neville. Already. Remembers. Everything!" Cindy mutters something under her breath about Neville finally standing up to Snape. "Ah, but what *leads* Neville to this sudden desire to assert himself?" demands Elkins. "What brings *about* this change? Must I remind you, Cindy, of your very own canonical defense for this theory? That JKR always prefers to show her secondary characters changing course only in response to Big, melodramatic, and *discrete* life-altering events? Must I really be the one to remind you that the Big Bang Destroyer's engines run only on *catalytic* converters? "It's not the Road to Damascus itself, but the *vision* on the Road to Damascus that constitutes the Big Bang, so where is the *catalyst* here? Where is the Event, the singular, discrete, cinematic and Big and Bangy *Event* that is supposed to lead to this sudden change in canonical behavior? What leads Neville to change in this so-called Bangy theory of yours? Self-reflection? A gradual process of maturity? Last Strawism? Those are not Big and Bangy. Bangy means that something *happens* to cause the change. Something abrupt, something dramatic, something sudden. POW!" Elkins slams the paddle down on the seat in front of her, causing a cloud of dust to rise into the air. "Bang!" she shouts. "Something *happens,* something specific, and then the character is never the same again! That is what Bang *means.* Bang is Neville suddenly regaining his memory, and then launching himself across the Hogwarts campus, wand out and lip drawn back in a snarl, gritting 'My name is Neville Longbottom. You Crucio'd my parents. Prepare to die,' while Harry and Ron *and* Hermione hang all over him, trying to hold him back and not being able to because he is Just So Pissed! Bang is Neville using his last dying breath to gasp out his hidden secret knowledge to grappling-on- the-catwalk-over-the-pit-of-hot-lava Harry! Bang is Neville rushing in at the last possible minute to scream, 'No! Harry! Don't trust him! He's EVIL!' Bang is Neville blasting his Gran into a million tiny lavender-water-scented pieces in a fit of mad *anguish!* Bang is Neville pointing his finger at Moody, whom JKR has tricked us all into trusting yet *again,* and screaming 'J'accuse!' These things have Bang, Cindy, because they are *sudden!* They happen *abruptly! * But Reverse Memory Charm does not have that! All that Reverse Memory Charm can give us is *gradual* change, and gradual change does not qualify as Bang, because it takes a single, abrupt, and *discrete* catalyst to make a speculation Big and Bangy!" Elkins stalks up to the podium and swings hard at the lectern. There is a terrible splintering noise. "Reverse," she screams, swinging madly at the pages of lecture notes now drifting down about her like snow as she makes her way back down to the front row. "Memory." Elkins smashes the paddle down on the seat Cindy has vacated. Droplets of grape juice and Zwieback crumbs fly into the air. "Charm." She swings the paddle once more at the seat. It breaks in half on the back of the uncomfortable metal chair. "Is," she bellows, gripping the haft of her now splintered paddle with both hands and crouching low, aiming its pointed end right at Cindy's throat. "A. DUD!!!!!" There is a very long silence. Cindy and Elkins stare at each other, breathing hard. The last of Elkins' lecture notes slowly drifts downwards, to land on the floor between them. The heading "No Suppressed Memory At All" is written in tiny cramped handwriting across the top of the page. Elkins blinks. She glances blankly down at the broken paddle in her hands. "You, uh, see," she says hoarsely. "You see. You see. When a character who has been carefully established, over the course of many pages of narrative, to be rather timid, really, you know: ameliorating, non-confrontational, always eager -- perhaps even, one might say, a tad too eager -- to seek consensus rather than opting for open conflict...when you have a character like *that,* one who has already been shown to be a little bit neurotic, really, even perhaps a bit *pathological* when it comes to his aversion to open confrontation...when you have this character who does seem to have a most unfortunate tendency to get himself, you know, bullied and insulted and pushed around by all of the more aggressive personalities out there, then naturally we all understand that it makes perfect psychological sense for there to be no *particular* catalyst leading him to finally snap. We all *understand* that the gradual accrual of insult and intimidation and abuse and suppressed *rage* might just eventually become a Bit Too Much. The notion of the Final Straw That Broke The Camel's Back is not an alien one to us, either in life or in fiction. And of course," she adds, straightening slowly. "I mean, naturally, that can be immensely dramatically *satisfying*. It can be cinematic. It can even be quite cathartic." Elkins glances down once more at her broken paddle, then hands it back to Cindy, who accepts it wordlessly. She reaches up to straighten her spectacles. "But it's still not Bang," she says quietly. "That's not what Bang means. Bang means something slightly different." Elkins turns on one heel and walks back to what remains of the podium. She bends down to pick a manilla envelope off the floor. "Of course," she says, as she gathers up the crumpled pages of her lecture notes, cramming them one by one in the envelope. "As you know, I'm hoping for a somewhat different resolution for Neville myself. Because for one thing, I'm a pacifist. And for another..." She gazes helplessly out over the wreckage of the lecture hall, then shrugs and tosses the envelope back down onto the floor. She walks to the door. "For another," she sighs. "I've never really been all that big a fan of Bang anyway." Elkins opens the door, then pauses at the threshold. She glances back over her shoulder into the darkened lecture hall. "Not like you, Cindy," she says. And leaves the room. Smiling slightly. ************************* -- Elkins For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypothe ticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From editor at texas.net Fri May 24 01:37:48 2002 From: editor at texas.net (Amanda Geist) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 20:37:48 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Difference Between TBAY and FF (WAS FF: Speculation; Fanfic is like TBAY References: Message-ID: <005701c202c3$9d67d0a0$407c63d1@texas.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39034 Cindy clarified TBAY and stated---> I sense, however, a feeling that TBAY and Fanfic are the same thing. <> Fanfic, IMHO, is one step further removed from straight canon analysis in that respect, which is another reason I think that TBAY and Fanfic are not the same thing at all. <> So. What does it all mean? Well, IMO, it doesn't mean TBAY is *better* than Fanfic or *worse* than Fanfic. It just means that TBAY is *different* from fanfic, that's all. Cindy, Cindy, you went to all this trouble, and the answer was right before you all along! I read TBAY. I don't read fanfic. Ergo, TBAY is not fanfic. Case closed. --Purist!Amanda From pennylin at swbell.net Fri May 24 02:31:33 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 21:31:33 -0500 Subject: The Difference Between TBAY and FF (WAS FF: Speculation; Fanfic is like TBAY References: Message-ID: <01da01c202cb$1e82a410$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 39035 Hi -- Lots of T-bay folks have rushed in, proclaiming loudly that they are not in fact writing Fanfic. "Oh, no," they protest. "Fanfic is very, very different than what we T-Bay'ers are engaging in." Relax. I agree. :--) However,..... I originally said the following: >Let's continue with the Snape as a Vampire thing, since Amanda used >that example too. Is there substantively any difference at all >between the following? > > (a) Poster A, who writes a really long post citing all the canon evidence that suggests that Snape is a vampire and refuting canon points that suggest he might not be (using sort of an "academic" straight narrative format); > (b) Poster B, who has written a fanfic exploring how Snape became a Vampire, using the same canon evidence that Poster A marshalls to his side in his narrative post; or > (c) Poster C, who takes Poster A's points and manipulates the material into what we're calling a TBAY post > > Obviously, these are 3 different *forms* of writing. They can all >be classed as persuasive writing perhaps -- the objective of all 3 >posters is to convince other readers that Snape *could* be a >vampire. Same objective -- just 3 different ways of arriving at >the same place. Cindy responded with: <<<>>>>>>> I wholeheartedly agree that Fanfic and TBAY are *different.* They are. But, in my example above, I specifically said that the fanfic writer is using the same canon evidence that Poster A used. I could have been more clear and perhaps that's what was confusing. Let's give all 3 writers the same tools. They can all use canon evidence and *only* canon evidence and they must use the *same* canon evidence. In my example, I'm also assuming that the fanfic author is not "making up" things that are not in canon to support his or her thesis. In *that* case .... I think we're just talking about form over substance; substantively, the objective of all 3 pieces is the same, IMHO. Yes, fanfic authors aren't normally constrained by the rules I'm using in this example ... but they *could* be, and if they were, then the end result will be "form over substance." I should be clear that on this list, we do have specific rules about posting, especially with regard to Fanfic. So, as far as posts to this list are concerned, fanfic authors must be making a canon point & must only use discrete portions of a fanfic to advance their arguments. But, the original spark to this conversation suggested that fanfic was "subversive" and not equivalent to general discussions like we have on this list. What I'm saying is: fanfic can be equivalent to a narrative argument. In my example, I've put all 3 posters on the same playing field, and all 3 posters are just using a different form to communicate their arguments on a given issue. As to "wild theories" in fanfic, Eileen had the following point to make: <<<<<<>>>>>> Er .... why do you say that there is "no way" that Harry & Draco will discover they both have super powers in JKR's universe? Do you have inside information? I mean if you believe it's impossible, that's one thing; but why is anything absolutely impossible if JKR hasn't specifically ruled it out? We know, for example, that she has explicitly ruled out teenage pregnancy, and she's made it reasonably clear by implication that there probably won't be teenage sex either ("gritty sexual feelings" probably doesn't equal actual sexual relations). Therefore, there are a fair number of Hogwarts-centered fics, including some very popular ones, that are covering ground that definitely won't be part of canon. But, JKR hasn't been specifically ruling out all that much, as far as I know. :--) Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pennylin at swbell.net Fri May 24 02:48:15 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 21:48:15 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Ron's reactions/SHIP/FF: sleuthing couples References: Message-ID: <01e501c202cd$73cf1e60$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 39036 Hi -- Pippin said: <<<<< I am not sure Harry's mind always works more like Hermione's than like Ron's, though. I think he uses both styles. There are certainly times, such as when he stabs the Diary with the fang, when the right idea just comes to him. Just my opinion of course.:--)>>>> For once, we completely agree, Pippin. :--) If I wasn't clear, I apologize. I think Harry uses a mix of logic and emotional intuitive gut-reaction type thinking. I think he uses far less pure logic than Hermione, but I think he uses far more of this than Ron. I see Harry in the middle, but I don't necessarily see Hermione and Ron as extreme positions either. I think Hermione can use intuitive thinking; she just doesn't do so very often. Her first reaction is to resort to logic, IMO. Ron, OTOH, probably doesn't eschew logical thinking in its entirety (esp. in playing chess for example). But, we readers are exposed to far more "intuitive" or "reactionary" thinking from Ron. Harry is definitely a healthy mix of both styles. My original point though is that I think we readers are meant to wonder about whether Ron has the same skill-set as Harry & Hermione; whether we're supposed to be suspicious as a result of the messenger (Crouch-as-Moody, whose motivations are suspect) is a debate in & of itself. Pippin, flattered by my comparison of her plot bunny to Paradigm of Uncertainty, commented: <<<<< Happy families may be all alike, if you believe Tolstoy, but sleuthing couples can be quite different. >>>>>>>>> Oh, I agree that a R/H dynamic would be entirely different than the H/H relationship portrayed in PoU. I just meant to point out that it wasn't an entirely original plot bunny ... not in terms of "sleuthing couples" per se. :--) Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From gohana_chan02 at lycos.com Fri May 24 03:15:21 2002 From: gohana_chan02 at lycos.com (Hana) Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 20:15:21 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: The Difference Between TBAY and FF (WAS FF: Speculation; Fanfic islike TBAY Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39037 I think the one thing that has been overlooked/glossed over/misunderstood (your choice ;)) in the discussion of TBAY and FF is that while both present different theories as to what might be possible in the past/present/future of the HP universe, TBAY sets out to prove the theory with canon while FF sets out to explore the idea around canon. For example, even when using narrative as the main writing format for TBAY, it's still basically a case of saying "here's my theory and it might be a possible explanation because of a) b) and c)". FF on the other hand is more of a situation where the author is saying "what if happened. How would people react? How would it change things from canon?" etc. In both situations the same theory or "what if" might be covered, but TBAY is an ~arguement~ that tries to persuade the reader while FF, as a general rule, presents and explores the idea without actively arguing the point. This isn't to say that a fic couldn't be written to actually argue a theory, but, for the most part, I don't think that's the main goal. To use a metaphor, it's like taking a walk in a forest -- the TBAYer would give reasons why their particular path is a good one and worthy of plotting on a map while the FF writer walks down the path because it might be nice to explore even if no one else is really interested in it. Both hope that people will follow their path, but they have different expectations of what the followers will get out of the journey. The TBAYer wants to convince first and entertain second while the FF writer wants to entertain first and convince second. Both entertainment and convincing points are necessary to both genres, but the degree of importance depends on the type of writing. So while there may be a lot of similarities at the core of TBAY and FF, the ultimate goal is different thus separating the two into very distinctive categories. And on the entire "Fanfiction is subversive" thread: SUBVERT: 1. to bring about the complete downfall or ruin of (something existing by a system of law, etc.) 2. to undermine the moral principles of (a person, etc) SUBVERSIVE: 1. liable to subert or overthrow a government, legally constituted institution etc. 2. a person engaged in subversive activities. (Collins Dictionary and Thesaurus, 1992) Was this how the word was originally intended to be used in connection to fanfiction? If so I have to completely disagree with its use. Fanfiction simply explores an option that has some canon basis but breaks from canon by its nature (though some stay very close to canon). It is in no way trying to convince readers that it is better than JKR's canon story, nor is it trying to replace JKR's plot. If it bothers you then, by all means, ignore it. I'd rather someone ~didn't~ read my stories than read them and be upset by them. I figure, if you don't like my path or my methods of exploration then don't follow me and find a path that you ~do~ like. In the end everyone will be happier that way. --- --Hana ________________________________________________________ Outgrown your current e-mail service? Get a 25MB Inbox, POP3 Access, No Ads and No Taglines with LYCOS MAIL PLUS. http://login.mail.lycos.com/brandPage.shtml?pageId=plus From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri May 24 03:33:22 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 03:33:22 -0000 Subject: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR: the Debate Rages On (WAS: Yellow Flags and Jobberkno In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39038 "CUT!!!!!!" Steven Speilberg hurried forward waving his arms overhead, his feet crunching shards of paddle. "CUT! Cut, I said! Everybody take it easy," he bellowed. "Just *relax*, all right?" Cindy pushed past Elkins and stormed from the platform to block Steven's path. "What is she *doing*?" Cindy demanded, her face flushed. "Will somebody tell me what she is *doing*?" Cindy hurled the remaining Zwieback to the ground in disgust, where they lay absorbing the Kool-aid that slicked the floor. "Where is *that* in the script? Somebody show me where it says any of *that* in the script. `Cause I'm not seeing it! And you want to know why I'm not seeing it? "BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE, THAT'S WHY!" "I was just . . ." Elkins began. "Oh, I know what you were `just'! You know, she always does this. She does this Every Single Time, Steven!" Speilberg stepped in front of Elkins, shielding her from Cindy's wrath. "OK, everybody. Take five. It'll be fine, really. We can shoot it again. Just . . . just take a break." "Good! Because I need a massage right now!" Cindy cried. "I mean it. It's in my *contract*, Steven. It says so right in my contract, Paragraph 73: `Swedish massage to be provided on demand for coping with *stress*.' Like, *stress* from so-called professionals who *won't follow the script*! I mean, what *was* that? Was that *Latin* or something? Are we making a foreign film now?" "It's all right, Cindy. I'll talk to her. I will," Steven assured. "Well, you'd *better*!!! BECAUSE I CAN'T WORK LIKE THIS!" Cindy stormed from the set, slamming the door behind her. The tinkle of broken glass filled the set. Steven turned to Elkins, sweat beads forming on his forehead. "Elkins, honey. Elkins, Elkins, Elkins. That was Marvelous, darling! It really was. It was . . . it . . . it was so *you*. I mean, I really *felt* that. You really made me feel that." Elkins smiled sweetly, her eyes wide with surprise. "Really?" "Oh, you have no *idea* how I felt that, honey. We all felt it, right everyone? You were just downright *Dangerous*, that's what you were. Really, you are just amazing!" "Oh, Steven, I'm so *glad* to hear you say that. I mean, I know I was opening up a bit there, and I just didn't want it to be *too much*, you know. But we can shoot it again and I can take it *up* a notch, if you want . . . ." "NO!" Steven interrupted. "No, no, we don't have to do that. No. But there is the little matter of the script. I mean, none of that was in the script. And you know the paddle thing? The part where you smashed the paddle? Well, we don't really *have* that many paddles. We're *way* over budget on this thing already, and we can't go around smashing the paddles. Especially the Big ones." Elkins' face fell. "You . . . you didn't like the paddle smashing climax?" she whispered. "No, no, I didn't say *that*. Did I say that? Didn't I just say I loved the whole thing? No, I meant that we have to have some *balance*. The Cindy character has to win once in a while, you know. That's cinematic balance. The Elkins character has to take one for the team in this scene. She's a SYCOPHANT, you know what I'm saying? I mean, how can there be a reconciliation if you . . . if you smash Cindy's paddle? Trust me, Elkins. It just won't work, doll. I'm sorry, but we have to follow the script on this one." Elkins nodded, her eyes filling with tears. "I . . . I could save it for the sequel. Can we do it in the sequel?" "Oh, absolutely. That's what we'll do. Look. Let me take care of this next scene, and we'll roll with you and Cindy in just ?" he glanced nervously at his watch ? "a few minutes. You relax, and I'll be *right* back for you, OK?" Elkins nodded slowly, a tear slipping down her cheek. Speilberg swung open the door to the next soundstage, kicking the slivers of glass aside. The sound of scraping glass masked his muttering: "Oh, there's not going to *be* a sequel. I'll direct *Harry Potter* before I put up with *this* again." He cupped his hands over his mouth. "Debbie! Naama! Eileen! You're up! Get in here!". ************* Debbie (wrestling with the limitations of Imperio): >If Imperio is a substitute for Veritaserum, why isn't it used all the > time? Why would torture ever be necessary? And if it wasn't used, Crouch > Jr. doesn't give a full explanation of how he got Moody to talk. Well, I guess it depends on context. I mean, we can hardly expect Dumbledore to use Imperio to interrogate Crouch Jr. It's Unforgivable, after all. Good guys have to use Veritaserum. Bad guys don't, I suppose. But you've given me a bit of a brain wave. Only a little one, really. But all this Memory Charm business aside, why isn't Neville simply operating under the Imperius Curse? Don't laugh, I mean it. I mean, maybe he was placed under the curse as a small child, perhaps by Mrs. Lestrange. . . . And Neville had no way to throw it off, of course, lacking magical training and all. Or maybe his parents did it. Hmmm. Did Frank place his son under Imperius to protect some really important secret as the Lestranges stormed the place? I mean, Imperius makes you happy and compliant, and Memory Charms seem to give people the outward appearance of being happy and compliant if a bit forgetful. Oh, I think there could be a link between Trevor and the Imperius Curse if Trevor really isn't just a Toad. I wrote: > > I see no reason to think that Frank knew where Voldemort was -- particularly > > if > > Voldemort was but a noxious gas at that point. Debbie replied: > But there were plenty of animals in the forest with knowledge of the noxious > gas. If Pettigrew could find him (GoF p. 655, US), it is not out of the > question to think a trained Auror could too. Ah, but Wormtail found Voldemort by chatting up the other rats, didn't he? Unless Frank is an Animagus (heaven help us!), then he wouldn't have any way of gathering this information, no matter how good an Auror he was. Eileen wrote: > CINDY, THERE'S A DE MURDERING ME IN THE BASEMENT! AND I WANT TO >LIVE! > I WANT TO LIVE TO RELAX IN OUR NEW CANON SUPPORTED MATCHING >ARMCHAIR! HELP! You're on your own, honey. It's a jungle out there. ;-) Naama wrote: > I should say that not only is it probable that there was a search > after Voldemort, but that it is highly IMprobable that there wasn't. > In fact, using the same argument, I'd say that they wouldn't have > attacked Frank unless they thought he actually knew something. Why > would they? Oh, Naama. I can tell that you are *ready* to join up under the variant whereby Mrs. Lestrange has a score to settle with Frank. You're right that much of her behavior isn't that of a cold, calculating DE at all. Now, maybe she is just woozy from her time in Azkaban . . . . . . and is not thinking straight. Or maybe she is sloppy and careless by nature. But it all makes sense if you just go ahead and make that big ol' canon leap that there's a link between Mrs. Lestrange and Frank that goes *way* back to when he arrested her. Heck, you can even turn the Bangometer *way* up and decide that Frank tortured Mrs. Lestrange when he arrested *her*. Aurors were authorized to use those Unforgivable Curses, after all, and maybe Frank was much more willing to get dirty than Moody was. So Mrs. Lestrange uses Crucio for a perfectly good reason -- because Frank used it on her first. And it came back to bite poor Frank, didn't it? Naama: > The only real problem with assuming that Frank did in fact have > important information, is the going crazy part. Would he really hold > on to the secret to the point of going insane under torture? > But, still, isn't it a bit strange that with all > the Cruciatus curses we've encountered, we've never had any > indication that Cruciatus causes insanity? As far as I remember, when > Harry is hit with a Cruciatus, the description of what he felt > doesn't include "Harry thought that if this continues one second > longer, he would go mad", or something like it (right? I don't have > the books here). If I'm correct, then it's fair to assume that > something else (or in addition) caused the Longbottom's insanity. Well, even working off the top of your head, you got that right. Harry thinks he wishes he could die: "He wanted it to end . . . to black out . . . to die. . . And then it was gone." But the second Cruciatus Curse does start to sound like a move toward insanity: "The pain was so intense, so all-consuming, that he no longer knew where he was." There's also no question that the cumulative effects of consecutive Cruciatus Curses is, uh, rather exhausting. After the first Cruciatus Curse, Harry is described as "hanging limply." After the second, he fares much worse: "He was shaking as uncontrollably as Wormtail had done when his hand had been cut off." So I guess it makes sense that Frank lost his mind, and I'm not sure we can really dispute Dumbledore's take on it at this point. But then again, these DEs tend to use the Cruciatus Curse in short blasts, don't they? I think it makes sense that even Mrs. Lestrange had no idea that Cruciatus causes insanity. I mean, that is the sort of thing a DE discovers in the field, don't you think? So Mrs. Lestrange isn't illogical. She is (1) woozy; (2) interested in torturing Frank to avenge an old grudge; and (3) learning on the fly about the effects of extended Cruciatus curses. So there it is, Naama. VindictiveYetWoozy!Mrs. Lestrange. And it is right Bangy, too! ************** Speilberg clapped his hands together forcefully, quieting the chatter among the crew. "All right, then. Are we all ready?" "Is *she* ready?" Cindy demanded, glaring at Elkins. "Because I do *not* want to be here all night, Steven." "It's cool, Cindy. Trust me. "OK, everyone. All right. This is "Elkins' Unconditional Surrender, Take II! Let's take it from Elkins' line, `Then I will retract my yellow flag.' Places everyone, places. Aaaannnnnd . . . . Action!" he cried. "People, people, people!" Cindy laughed. "The Egg is Not A Problem for MATCHINGARMCHAIR." "Um. . ." Elkins' eyes flicked to the cue cards behind Cindy. "Now that you mention it, you're right. You are absolutely right. I cannot *believe* I didn't see that. Thanks for helping me see that. "So what's your answer to the Dementor problem, then?" Elkins continued flatly. " 'Cause I gotta tell you, I just can't *wait* to hear this one." Cindy beamed at her. "That's not a problem either, because that is exactly as it should be." Elkins hesitated, almost choking, then forced the words from her lips. "You are a genius, Cindy. I really mean that. A genius, that's what you are," she said, in a dead, hollow voice. Cindy replied, "Oh, that's so very kind of you. So . . . will you convert, Elkins? A deal's a deal, right?" Elkins fingered the script, glancing downward imperceptibly. "But of course. My only regret is in not converting *months ago* I ask only one thing. Can I carry your Big Paddle, just this once?" "Oh, no, I don't think so . . . " Cindy replied, pausing for dramatic effect. " . . . I'm down to just the one." ******************* Cindy ***************** > For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit > Hypothetic Alley at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth e > ticalley.htm > > and Inish Alley at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? > method=reportRows&tbl=13 From Zarleycat at aol.com Fri May 24 12:30:11 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 12:30:11 -0000 Subject: The Difference Between TBAY and FF (WAS FF: Speculation; Fanfic is like TBAY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39039 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "lucky_kari" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > > To Cindy's arguments on the differences between FF and TBAY, I'd > like > > to add the following: > > > > Perhaps the most notable difference between TBAY and FF lies in WHO > > and WHAT is being dramatized. > > Nods sagely. You know, I wonder if TBAY actually convinces people more > than a straight-out theory? Speaking strictly for myself, no, it doesn't. I have read some of the posts regarding the differences between TBAY and FF, and I have to say, it looks to me like we're splitting hairs. One of the reasons that I tend to skip a lot of TBAY posts is that I find if you jump into one in the middle of the discussion, it is very distracting to wade through the decorative prose associated with these posts. I'm not trying to insult anyone here, nor am I saying that TBAY is a bad idea - I'm just saying it doesn't work for me. > Demonstrating a theory from FF is, of course, well..... > > I've been thinking about fanfiction's function awhile, and I don't > really think you can demonstrate a theory through FF. What you are > doing instead is showing how a theory could work. I don't see Draco > and Hermione in canon, so a well-written Draco and Hermione story > would not convert me. Here's where I think we get to the hair-splitting thing. People have their own thoughts, opinions and interpretations regarding the HP characters. Based on those, people can create backstories in their minds about what may have occured in the past (Snape loved Lily) or what might occur in the future. (Redeemed Draco.) A writer may decide to write the definitive Snape/Lily Hogwarts love story, complete with mushy dialog and foaming-at-the-mouth murderous Sirius who steps in trying to get rid of Snape for James and Lily's benefit. None of which is in canon. However, I think a well-written story could support this theory as well as any TBAY post. If you don't buy the Snape/Lily thing, no story will convince you. If you don't buy the Snape/Lily thing, no amount of theorizing will convince you, either. Honestly, the only difference I see between FF and TBAY is that FF takes the theory and fleshes it out. Marianne From Whirdy at aol.com Fri May 24 13:06:59 2002 From: Whirdy at aol.com (Whirdy at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 09:06:59 EDT Subject: unsubscribe Message-ID: <12e.11ce6468.2a1f94f3@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39040 From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri May 24 14:09:19 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:09:19 -0000 Subject: Coherence II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39041 Pip wrote: > Thanks, David. That was a really thought-provoking post. Glad to be of provocation! > > The following thoughts are based on what I know of 'Golden Age' > detective stories and how I *think* JKR is using the techniques of > that genre. Aha, now that is an interesting subject. IMO, JKR doesn't really obey the rules as I understand them (not surprising as one can regard HP as subversive of the other genres it draws on). My understanding of detective stories is that the clues given are unambiguous once you understand them right. For example, in one Christie (SPOILER) a witness sees someone at the murder scene with the letters TA monogrammed on their dressing gown. Elsewhere in the book, it is made clear that the ability to see in this situation depends on the presence of a mirror. So, in fact, the monogram says AT. Needless to say, there is both an AT and a TA in the story. The A of AT stands for Arabella, but the character is routinely referred to as Bella. So all the info is there to make an unambiguous deduction - only *one* suspect could have done it, despite all the red herrings. The art of reading the detective story is to identify those clues that really do eliminate 90% of the suspects, as opposed to merely appearing to. JKR doesn't do this, IMO. I believe the main reason why not is not so much to do with witholding necessary information from the reader or cheating; it is that the puzzle itself is less well-defined. A classic murder mystery has a well-defined puzzle: identify the murderer. With a book such as GOF, we don't even really know what the puzzle is. No crime has been committed (it appears). At one point Harry points out that *nothing* has happened to him all year - except that his name was put in the goblet. It's not really true to say that the identity of that person is the puzzle: it's only part of the puzzle. The real puzzle is 'what is going on?' This means that although we have lots of clues - Moody's dustbins, Crouch in Snape's office, etc. it's much harder to whittle down to the ones that answer the question, because we don't really know what the question is. (As it happens, in GOF we also have a whacking great coincidence: Barty breaks Imperius and releases the Dark Mark just at the time that Voldemort is planning to use him, IMO a bit of a weakness in the plot as it gives us a number of valid clues that are nevertheless incidental to the real conspiracy. In detective fiction, coincidences should be red herrings. All that World Cup stuff is not red herrings but it is a coincidence.) > I think there is going to be a problem with that one, simply because > JKR seems to be following a 'Agatha Christie style' model. [I do > *not* mean that she is 'copying' Christie, merely that I think I've > recognised some of the techniques as similar] This means that the > *clues* we are given *will* make perfect sense in terms of the book > they are in: however, their actual meaning may be a complete reversal > of their apparent meaning, and they will almost certainly not *look* > significant. I'm not sure what you mean - you've convinced me later on that Scabbers doesn't quite make sense in PS/COS. > In fact, Harry's Parseltongue is a brilliant example of 'hide the > clues in plain sight'. > The clues we are given in PS/SS are: > Harry can talk to a snake, apparently in English. > Harry cannot do this with any other animal - not even Hedwig. > No other wizard is seen talking to any animal - they can't even speak > to their familiars. No animal is magically made to talk. This is interesting too, because the other things Harry does are: - grow hair fast; - cause glass to disappear; - fly (or apparate?) onto the roof of his school: QTTA specifically states that wizards *can't* fly unaided; - blow up (in the nicest possible way) aunt Marge; - cause his cupboard to fly open. I don't recall any of these things being done otherwise, though I can hear Faith (see HypotheticAlley in the admin files) saying we had no need to hear about other examples. But the real eye-opener to me is that *Neville* bounced when his uncle dropped him from a window; at Hogwarts, he is injured when he does his spectacular jump in the flying lesson. I had always seen this as a Flint. But... You could argue that wandless wizard children can do magic that Hogwarts manages to suppress or take away (Parallels to RL education to OT!). (If true that weakens the PS Parseltongue clue as a clue for CS, of course.) The ultimate example of this is then of course baby Harry's defeat of Voldemort. Now what themes and messages does *that* bring out? > Pippin's found another one: > >>How about the cabbage smell in Mrs. Figg's house? > which is a terrific example of clues spreading over more than one > book. But the smell isn't a puzzle, in PS at any rate. It is a mystery of a sort now, I suppose, why the tent smells the same, but only because we know Mrs Figg is significant. > > We also get clues about Scabbers true nature in PS/SS. Wizards and > witches can turn into animals (and we don't actually *need* to know > this until Book Three). Scabbers is Percy's *old* rat. Ron can't make > a transforming spell work on Scabbers (and we're told this twice). In > Book Two, the clue is that Scabbers is still around; and in Book > Three, in case we've missed this (or don't know how long pet rodents > live) JKR sportingly explains that rats usually live two to three > years. I like this. This is an example of what I meant, because Scabbers *is* being signalled as unusual. But it frightens me too: if Harry believes or doesn't notice something, then I do too. Every time. My only excuse is that at the time we are still very short of information about what is reasonable to expect of a wizard's familiar. So I think I *had*, in a subconscious sort of way, pegged Scabbers down as 'not an ordinary rat', but I think the comment field in my database said 'of course he's not ordinary, he's a wizard's rat'. BTW I still think that the reason Ron couldn't transfigure him was a combo of a dud spell (courtesy F&G) and Ron's inexperience: after all they do have to learn this sort of thing at school. > (whose favorite bit of misdirection so far is Dumbledore's reply to > Harry in PS/SS, when Harry asks if Snape hates him because he hated > his father) Go on, you've got me stumped David From Edblanning at aol.com Fri May 24 14:29:41 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:29:41 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR: the Debate Rages On (WAS: Yel... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39042 Eloise is awoken from her slumbers at the back of the hall by screaming and shouting and the noise of doors slamming and glass breaking. 'Eloise, you're wanted! The Sphinx's trailer' Rubbing her eyes, Eloise wanders off in the direction of Cindy's star-sized trailer. She knocks on the door, opens it a crack, cautiously peers round and, seeing Cindy sitting quietly on one of her set of matching armhairs, enters. 'Good. You've come to give me a massage?' 'Err....yes' Eloise isn't quite sure why she's been summoned, but if Cindy's ego needs massaging, then she figures someone had better do it. The thought of what Tough, featherboa-bedecked Cindy might get up to if the stress *really* got to her doesn't bear thinking about. Cindy springs lightly onto the massage table which is another prominent feature of her trailer. As Eloise begins working on the knots in her back, she begins to take in the rest of her surroundings: the pictures of Cindy with all the paddles she has ever owned; the memorabilia of the campaign promoting some of the more obscure varieties of Kool-Aid which first made her a household name; the remaining Big Paddle, hung mercifully high up on the wall out of immediate reach and a photograph frame, the picture turned mysteriously towards the wall. Eloise is intrigued and contrives to knock it over accidentally on the pretext of getting a better grip on Cindy's shoulders. 'Give that to me.' Eloise gives Cindy a look (which she might not have risked if she didn't have her lying flat on her stomach, wrapped in a towel) 'Please.' It is a picture of Cindy and Elkins in happier days, becomingly clad in their wet-suits, propelling a kayak by means of very small paddles, featherboas flying in the wind. 'How did it come to this?' asks Cindy wistfully. 'I thought we were friends......and now.....now she's *overacting*, trying to take the lime-light.....*smashing my paddle!*' 'Is there any chance it can be mended?' Cindy shakes her head sadly, and picks up a bag, tipping out onto the massage table a dozen pieces of splintered wood. 'But *you* understand the point, don't you? The Reverse Memory Charm ..it makes *sense*.' 'ER....look, I was asleep through all that' 'Yes, but you were asleep in a MATCHINGARMCHAIR, that means something doesn't it?' 'Well, it might, or it might not....I'm a bit undecided on all this memory charm stuff, to be honest. My job is just to go around giving massages and telling people how terribly clever they are and nodding occasionally so they think I understand what they're saying..... Well, it's worked up to now, hasn't it? I mean, to pick up an a bit I *do* understand, I used to have this problem with the idea of just why anyone should think the Longbottoms should have information on Voldemort.' 'Exactly,' interrupts Cindy, >' I see no reason to think that Frank knew where Voldemort was -- >particularly if Voldemort was but a noxious gas at that point.<> >Wormtail found Voldemort by chatting up the other rats, >didn't he? Unless Frank is an Animagus (heaven help us!), then he >wouldn't have any way of gathering this information, no matter how >good an Auror he was.' 'Yeess........but Wormtail found him by communicating with rats because....well he was a rat......and *not* an Auror. Frank OTOH *was* an Auror (and not, I assume, a rat :-) ). Now, we've never been told exactly what powers Aurors have when it comes to sniffing out Dark Wizards. Do they just have good detective powers or something more? Look at all Crouch/Moody's 'Dark detectors'. Look at the way owls are able to find the person they're looking for. Now, what about a potion made from owl feathers........' Cindy is reaching out towards a pile of yellow flags..... ' But anyway, it doesn't seem at all unlikely to me that the Aurors would have had some means of tracking down Voldemort. And they probably had the advantage. The DEs on the whole don't seem to have tried, do they? The Lestranges and their companions seem to be an exception in their loyalty to Voldemort. I imagine that the rest fled in disarray at the news of Voldemort's downfall, covering their own backs, whereas we know Dumbledore's side were on the spot straight away. I further imagine that Frank Longbottom, if not one of 'the old crowd', was at least close to Dumbledore as when he tells Harry about the Longbottoms' fate his voice is 'full of a bitterness Harry had never heard before then'. I think it extremely likely that, perhaps at Dumbledore's prompting, he immediately started trying to track him. And I do think that Dumbledore's spies have been tracking him since, though obviously not always very successfully ;-). (Who took their eye off the ball when he turned up at Hogwarts, then? And in Little Hangleton) In CoS, he has sources who tell him that Voldemort is currently hiding in the forests of Albania. He doesn't just say he assumes this, because of where Quirrell had met him, it appears to be *current* knowkedge. And it's nearly two years later when he mentions Bertha disappearing where Voldemort was certainly last known to be. OK, it's not stated, but that implies to me that he did still have his finger on the pulse. So I'm arguing that it really was possible that Frank did have the ability to know where Voldemort was. And that Cruciatus thing......I have to say that I also have my doubts as to how the Longbottoms lost their minds as a result of Cruciatus.' >'But the second Cruciatus Curse does start to sound like a move >toward insanity: "The pain was so intense, so all-consuming, that >he no longer knew where he was." There's also no question that the >cumulative effects of consecutive Cruciatus Curses is, uh, rather >exhausting. After the first Cruciatus Curse, Harry is described >as "hanging limply." After the second, he fares much worse: "He >was shaking as uncontrollably as Wormtail had done when his hand had >been cut off." ' 'Yeah, I get that. But what is being described is the effect of *pain*. he doesn't know where he is *whilst he is in pain* and the limpness and shaking are the after-effects of pain which wear off. Now, I'm sure a that Mrs Lestrange did go just a little OTT with the old Cruciatus, but we've seen nothing else in canon to suggest that Cruciatus can cause insanity, or lasting loss of awareness. The Penseive four are accused of using Cruciatus, not I think, of making the Longbottoms deranged. Given the fact that Cruciatus is an Unforgivable, from the sentencing point of view, I shouldn't think it matters much. ' >I guess it makes sense that Frank lost his mind, and I'm not sure we can really dispute Dumbledore's take on it at this point. 'Well, Cindy, it doesn't make sense to me. I agree that we have to take Dumbledore's word, but what does he say? He says they were tortured and that they are now insane. *He* doesn't mention Cruciatus and he doesn't actually say that the insanity is the result of the torture. Which makes me wonder.....Is there some other kind of torture, perhaps more mental than physical? Or is the insanity not the result of torture, but of something else? I leave sinister plots involving bent Aurors, etc. to others. Could Dumbledore's bitterness be because he knows something about who made them insane - and that it wasn't the DEs? Is this why he is willing to admit that he has no idea whether Crouch Jr was involved? Now, what does all this this have to do with MATCHINGARMCHAIRS? Because I think I've lost the plot.' But before Cindy can explain, she's called back to the set. She swings her legs down and hops off the table. 'Ow! What the.....' Cindy has accidentally trodden on Eloise's pet hedgehog. 'Oh, watch out! Poor Abelard!' Cindy doesn't look as if she thinks there's anything poor about him and as she hops about, nursing her foot, Eloise retreats, clutching Abelard in the dragon skin gloves she always carries around for just such occasions. Later, she finds herself despatched to Elkins' trailer. It's a modest trailer; no airs and graces, no matching armchairs. Elkins is looking despondent. 'Lacklustre. That's what he called it. Lacklustre. I mean, I give it my all, and it's just not good enough. That script....what can you do with it....it just lacks ....everything. No truth, no sincerity. How is anyone supposed to do anything with that? You know what this is, don't you? This is the end. There won't be a sequel; he was just humouring me, I know that.' 'Oh, there'll be a sequel, Elkins. I just *know* there'll be a sequel. Somehow. Here, have a brandy.' Eloise reaches out towards a decanter 'No, not that one. That one's been doctored. You remember...Cindy......back in the old days...... ambushes and all that.' Eloise does indeed remember the occasion on which having accepted brandy from Cindy, Elkins and others got very excited and were observed jumping up and down on the sofa screaming 'bloody ambush' at the tops of their voices. 'Elkins, you didn't have any of that earlier on today, did you?' Eloise notices that Elkins is holding a copy of the same photograph that she saw in Cindy's trailer. 'Do you think she remembers?' she asks. 'Oh, yes, Elkins, I'm sure she does. And do you know what I overheard? They're thinking of making this one of those films with two alternative endings. You know like thay did with that remake of that old classic _The Fourth Man_ you know, the one with that catchy zither tune, Da de daa, de da, de da...... Da de daa, de da, de da....... Da de da de da..de dam, de da,de da....... You know, the one where there was one ending where Fourth Man *was* Avery and that much more convincing one where Fourth Man turned out to be Molly Weasley's second cousin, aka Rita Skeeter.' Elkins is still looking at the photo, where for the first time Eloise realises that she can just see Avery's head disappearing under the waves, evidently as the result of one of Cindy's attempts to drown him. 'Or perhaps not...' Eloise #,#,"> #,#,"> #,#,"> #,##,#"> (Abelard and his cousins) For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri May 24 14:34:23 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 14:34:23 -0000 Subject: The Difference Between TBAY and FF (WAS FF: Speculation; Fanfic is like TBAY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39043 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "kiricat2001" wrote: > Here's where I think we get to the hair-splitting thing. People have > their own thoughts, opinions and interpretations regarding the HP > characters. Based on those, people can create backstories in their > minds about what may have occured in the past (Snape loved Lily) or > what might occur in the future. (Redeemed Draco.) A writer may > decide to write the definitive Snape/Lily Hogwarts love story, > complete with mushy dialog and foaming-at-the-mouth murderous Sirius > who steps in trying to get rid of Snape for James and Lily's > benefit. None of which is in canon. However, I think a well- written > story could support this theory as well as any TBAY post. Here I must disagree. A Snape/Lily story is by definition all about how Lily felt, and how Snape felt, and what James knew. The author's portrayal of the emotions, convincing or otherwise, is the point. In a TBAY Good Ship LOLLIPOPS post, however, despite the "decorative prose", the point is to list points of canon that support LOLLIPOPS, point out canonical problems that it answers, and list literary parallels. There may be a lot of prose about Tabouli hanging Elkins from the yard arm, and what George is doing while Tabouli is talking, but the main point is to set forth an ordinary theory, which will be treated as an ordinary theory in response. No-one responds to a TBAY post by saying, "Your portrayal of Snape's bitterness was refreshing and original. I almost felt sorry for him." (which is the way people respond to FFs) Instead, admist a narrative of escape from LOLLIPOPS, someone will point out literary reasons for avoiding LOLLIPOPS and canonical problems in LOLLIPOPS. Furthermore, the decorative prose is often quite self-referential, adding a further layer of meaning to the posts. Elkins' latest attack on Cindy is a clever spin on her T.S. Eliot-Neville post. As an English student, I enjoy this sort of cleverness, the moments when one goes - "Oh, that's what the author's up to!" The worm who hopes not to turn, but is forced to, a concept Elkins was discussing, is here made concrete. This is not fanfic, but a form of fictionalized literary analysis, that, I have noticed, many academics love to write. I was early introduced to the genre by a classicist who taught me in junior high the basics of English, World History, and Latin. His twenty pages on Vergilian meter would have done Theory Bay proud. Yet, they were no way comparable to historical fiction about Vergil and Horace, even though both Vergil and Horace had TBAY-like appearances. He was a very good and entertaining teacher. >If you > don't buy the Snape/Lily thing, no story will convince you. If you > don't buy the Snape/Lily thing, no amount of theorizing will convince > you, either. Err... I don't know about you, but did you come to the HP fandom with all your pet theories already formed and laid out? Fanfic has not changed my mind on anything, but theorizing has made all the difference. I joined LOLLIPOPS because of canon discussion in TBAY surroundings, and left it because of canon discussion in TBAY surroundings. Before I joined HPFGU, I never even considered Neville having a memory charm, for example. The reason one doesn't buy Snape/Lily is one doesn't think the evidence is anywhere near adequate. This has a lot to do with personal preferences etc. but it's going a little too far, imho, to say that theorizing has no impact at all. If so, what's the point of having this discussion group? > Honestly, the only difference I see between FF and TBAY is that FF > takes the theory and fleshes it out. Well, then, wouldn't it be as accurate to say that the only difference between FF and all HPFGU posts is that FF takes the theory and fleshes it out?That seems to me a large difference. Bones are bones, but bones with flesh makes a body. Eileen From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri May 24 15:25:36 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 15:25:36 -0000 Subject: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR: the Debate Rages On (WAS: Yel... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39044 Eileen wakes up in the new MATCHINGARMCHAIR raft. From shore, she can hear screams wafting across the water. Well, that's how life is in TBAY. She thinks no more about it, and resolves to go to sleep. However, suddenly she nearly falls out of the raft. Is that Stephen Spielberg on shore filming the events? "Avery, quick, we need to paddle to shore! To get autographs!" Being a sycophant who couldn't pass up a celebrity's autograph either, Avery quickly concurs, and the raft whizzes towards shore. It passes the derelict and abandoned Fourth Man hovercraft. Avery's eyes fill up with tears, on seeing all that is left to remind him of his destroyed ancestral home with the gloomy Yew trees and the Tudor left wing. "Don't worry, Ave, we'll fix it up later. I'm not abandoning Fourth Man until J.K. Rowling drags me off it, kicking and screaming." But what is this? Stephen Spielberg is gone, instead a very familiar face looms into view. "You'll be wanting my autograph," the man states confidently. He is carrying a director's chair with the initials G.L. on the back. "Gilderoy Lockhart?" asks Eileen. "No, no. I'm watching Steven's filming, and I must say, I have some ideas to spruce up the script. That confrontation between Elkins and Cindy is amazing, but we really need a comic side-character to provide running commentary on it in an incomprehensible accent." "Sorry, my accent's comprehensible," said Eileen, "And Avery doesn't talk." "Doesn't talk?" The man's face lights up in interest. "Mute sidekicks work as well, you know. Can he beep?" "Sorry," says Eileen, shaking her head. "Have you seen Cindy around?" "No," says the man. "Is there anything I could help you with? Any plot problems, dialogue problems?" "Well, I actually think that I've fixed up a plot problem with MATCHINGARMCHAIR." "The MATCHINGARMCHAIR Strikes Back?" he asks sympathetically. "That's a brilliant title," says Eileen. "Sounds vaguely familiar, but you know, the memory charm. Cindy, btw, scored big with her Jobberknoll memory potion discovery. I think she's proved the existence of the memory potion bigtime, since it was mentioned in conjunction with Veritaserum. Reading that, I thought MATCHINGARMCHAIR's troubles were over, and that soon we would all be cuddled together in his cozy confines. But, rightaway, Elkins had two very good objections to MATCHINGARMCHAIR, and, imho, Cindy didn't answer them properly." "Oh, I see," said G.L. "But I heard her say, ""People, people, people! The Egg is Not A Problem for MATCHINGARMCHAIR." "Yes, she did say that," says Eileen, "but it is. You see, Cindy came up with a very clever story by which the egg reminded Neville of a jobberknoll, digesting at death the screams of his parent's torture. But, if Neville really heard the original screams, and MATCHINGARMCHAIR insists he did, would he really liken the egg to a person being tortured, no matter how the jobberknowl jabbered?" "Well," said G.L. "He might." "In your galaxy, maybe," says Eileen, "But I couldn't help thinking that Elkins was right on the mark on this one. Let's roll the film back a litte." The man with the mysterious initials complies. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "What?" Elkins stares at her. "What? You...Oh. Oh, right, yes, I see. So Neville's great and glorious Reverse Memory Charm doesn't even lead him to remember his parents being *tortured?* All he's got is this memory of some *bird* being strangled? Oh, yeah." She snorts. "That's *very* exciting, Cindy. Real Bangy." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Elkins has a point." the man concedes. "I have a bad feeling about this." "Ah, but, the more she tightens her grip on her points, the more theories will slip through her fingers. I know what's going on with Egg now. The Egg, if you recall, was a disguise of a certain sound. When you put it under water, you found out what the sound really was. Listening to it above water, it was, well not muffled, but not clear either. One listened to it and tried to figure out what the underlying form was. It was not a sound that sat well on human ears. Seamus tried to rationalize it as being, beneath everything, a banshee's wailing, and Neville, well Neville, thinking on torture, felt that its underlying form was tortured screaming. The Egg, of course, sounded like nothing human. Harry even says as much." "But what about the Dementor?" "Well, Cindy has her answer. Harry's experiences were worse than Neville. But, I'm not convinced. In fact, I agree with Elkins. Let's roll the film." * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "ARE YOU COMPLETELY OUT OF YOUR *MIND*?" she shrieks, seemingly oblivious to the fact that she has just slipped into one of her very least favorite aspects of JKR's chosen idiom. "WHAT ARE YOU *TALKING* ABOUT? ARE YOU *INSANE?* YOU THINK THAT A COUPLE OF ABRUPTLY-CUT OFF SCREAMS AND A RUSHING NOISE AND A FLASH OF GREEN LIGHT IS A WORSE MEMORY THAN--" * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * "Torture is worse than abrupt murder to witness, in some respects," says Eileen. "After all, Darth Vader murdered lots of people in quick "flashes of green light" situations, but he cracked when he saw Luke tortured. You have seen that movie, haven't you?" "Yes," said the man. "And, I'd like to draw your attention to what a masterpiece it is. I don't know how many people have come to me and said, "I saw Star Wars, and the experience has caused me to re- experience my life and join a Buddhist monastery." "None?" ventures Eileen. "Well, Steven said he was moved," said the man huffishly. "And, I think it's a very deep and trancedental movie." "Be that as it may, there's a very simple reason why Harry reacted worse than Neville, and it fits perfectly within the logic of the Reverse Memory Charm or, as we must now call it, the Reverse Memory Potion theory. Dementors make one relive one's worst moments. Harry, having completely forgotten his parents' murder, does very badly against the Dementors. But, what if, as MATCHINGARMCHAIR claims, Neville is already reliving his parents' torture. If one regularly hears Cruciatus screams already, wouldn't have one learned to cope with them to some extent? Once Harry begins to cope more, he can face the dementors much better. Boggart-dementors have all the emotional and psychological effects of real dementors (as demonstrated in POA), yet Harry is able to deal with that Boggart-dementor in GoF quite handily. Neville does o.k. in the train, because he's an old hand at the reliving-your-worst-memories game." "May I have a MATCHINGARMCHAIR, then?" asks the man, clearly impressed. Eileen is about to send Avery back to a raft for a MATCHINGARMCHAIR to give the strange visitor, when she hears a roar of laughter, and looks up to see Elkins, in wetsuit, a paddle in her hand. ""Pah!" spits Elkins. "Pah! That's not *Bang,*. That's *girl stuff!* It's a chick flick! It's an after-school special! It's a soap opera! It's a Kaffee Klatsch! It is just plain *Weak,* is what it is. It. Is. A. DUD!" Eileen's knees begin to knock together. There was a time when she and Elkins had been lowly sycophants together. Many things had come in the way of that friendship, the Reverse Memory Charm, the question of whether Crouch Sr. was dead sexy, but she had never imagined that one day Elkins would become an avenging angel. Her fears, though, are groundless. Elkins' face relaxes. "I've never really been all that big a fan of Bang anyway." Eileen nods. "So when are you joining us?" From huntleyl at mssm.org Fri May 24 15:59:23 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 11:59:23 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Coherence II References: Message-ID: <001801c2033b$f9638d40$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 39045 Dave said: >This is interesting too, because the other things Harry does are: >- grow hair fast; >- cause glass to disappear; >- fly (or apparate?) onto the roof of his school: QTTA specifically >states that wizards *can't* fly unaided; >- blow up (in the nicest possible way) aunt Marge; >- cause his cupboard to fly open. >I don't recall any of these things being done otherwise, though I can >hear Faith (see HypotheticAlley in the admin files) saying we had no >need to hear about other examples. Mmm..on a related note..I was listening (*eg* yes, listening..don't look at me like that. It's not cheating, it's multitasking..I had homework to do.) to CoS for about the hundredth time (I'm not sure that's even an exaggeration, honestly..we generally have HP playing in our dorm..even if it's jut background noise) and something stood out to me that hasn't caught my attention before.. In chapter 11, the Dueling Club, when Draco and Harry go at it...Draco sends some spell at Harry (it doesn't say what) which hits Harry, "so hard, he felt as though he had been hit over the head with a saucepan. He stumbled but everything still seemed to be working, and wasting no more time, Harry pointed his wand at Malfoy..." Anyway, what was this spell and why didn't it work? Harry didn't know any defensive spells at this time -- nor did he use any. Furthermore, Malfoy's got to be pretty good at nasty hexes (he manages the snake quite nicely) and you'd think he wouldn't have any trouble cursing Harry. In fact, he *does* curse Harry directly after that -- and it works fine. So why didn't this spell do what it was supposed to? What was it? Surely the idea wasn't just to make Harry get a headache...what was it *supposed* to do? How did Harry semi-succeed in blocking it? And why couldn't he do the same to the following curse Malfoy threw at him? Very strange, that Harry kid is. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Fri May 24 16:43:25 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 16:43:25 -0000 Subject: Win It For Wood (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39046 Win It For Wood (To the opening title song from Sondheim's Into the Woods ? beginning with the Baker and Cinderella's duet) Hear a MIDI at: http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/into_the_woods.html Dedicated to Jenny of Ravenclaw THE SCENE: The Quidditch playing field. THE GQT, inspired by Wood's latest pep talk, burst into song as they take the field GQT: Win it for Wood, Focus today, And Lee will do The play-by-play. He says we're good, So what the hey, Let's go out to play Quidditch. Win it for Wood Our brooms are swift, We fly them well, We don't need spells - ANGELINA Win it for Wood to get the Cup- HARRY Win it for Wood to vanquish Slyth'rin- GEORGE Win it for Wood to end his gripes- FRED To stop his tantrums- KATIE To be rankling Ravenclaw- GQT: Win it for Wood He'll get upset If Hufflepuff Pulls an upset. Win it for Wood Ignore his fret- Ting which gets rather corny. Win it for Wood He'll get his wish, He says, "Raise welts, And win ? or else!" HARRY We'll win it good to impress Cho - FRED We'll win it good to dig at Diggory- ALICIA We'll win it good to sneer at Snape - GEORGE To annoy Malfoy- ANGELINA To delight McGonagall- KATIE We'll win it good for Gryffindor House... We'll win it good for Gryffindor House... GEORGE & FRED A Plumpton Pass Or Porskoff Ploy Will nail their ass And bring us joy KATIE & ANGELINA A Bludger Backbeat By the Weasley boys With Harry as our Seeker Will make our rivals shriek here GQT: Win it for Wood We can't relax We must stay grim Or it's the axe. Win it for Wood Out team attacks Whoever we're opposing! Win it for Wood We'll score a goal When we show them Our Sloth Grip Roll Win it we should - HARRY To seek the Snitch - GEORGE To beat the Bludgers - KATIE: To throw the Quaffle- GQT: To blag - To blatch - To blurt - To bumph - To cobb - To flack - To snitchnip and haversack! Win it for Wood! Win it for Wood! Win it for Wood! And oh, if we could, Win it before dark! - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Fri May 24 17:08:22 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 18:08:22 +0100 Subject: Plaudits - Win It For Wood (filk) References: Message-ID: <00eb01c20345$9bd43e40$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 39047 Win It For Wood (To the opening title song from Sondheim's Into the Woods - beginning with the Baker and Cinderella's duet) Hear a MIDI at: http://www.broadwaymidi.com/shows/into_the_woods.html Dedicated to Jenny of Ravenclaw THE SCENE: The Quidditch playing field. THE GQT, inspired by Wood's latest pep talk, burst into song as they take the field OH WICKED! Sondheim and Harry Potter two of my favourites!! Haven't enjoyed one so much since Marina's superb and classic take on dear Severus * g * T'riffic! Felicia From chetah27 at hotmail.com Fri May 24 05:04:50 2002 From: chetah27 at hotmail.com (aldrea279) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 05:04:50 -0000 Subject: Rowling and Tolkien (Longbottom) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39048 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "anglinsbees" wrote: > I have been rereading "The Two Towers" again, and noticed something > that had my jaw hanging open- "Longbottom" was the name of the > Hobbit who first introduced pipeweed to the shire- and he was famous > for his gardens and get his herbs! I'm re-reading TTT myself right now...didn't notice that, lol. I don't reallt like paralleling things with names. But, that is rather interesting. > There are so many similarities between Tolkien and the Harry Potter > world- the obvious ones such as Gandalf/ Dumbledore, Peter Pettigrew > and Gollum (Both groveling whiners, who were placed in the heros > debt through acts of mercy. Gandalfs words to Frodo, which he > remembers when he decides to spare Gollum as they travel to Mordor > are strikingly similar to those Rowling puts in Harry and > Dumbledores minds and mouths on the subject of Peter.) I read LotR before I picked up HP, and I have always always pictured Dumbledore as almost exactly like I picture Gandalf. I can't help it, they're both so alike- physically and characteristically. I agree on the Pettigrew/Gollum parallel. Was it not said somewhere that Pettigrew would be the one to bring back the Dark Lord? Gah, if only I had a copy of GoF handy. But I find that intersting in parallel to the way Gollum is the one that directs the Dark Lord of LotR's attention to "shire" and "hobbits", -almost- bringing the Dark Lord to power if he had gotten ahold of the Ring. There is an obvious parallel between Harry/Frodo- both orphans, both very much caught in the struggle between good and evil, and both destined to play a huge rule in the take down of each series Dark Lord. > Despite the similarities, I cannot help but note the huge > differences. (Ron has very little in common with Samwise,lol!) Has > anyone noticed and analyzed parelells? While I do think that Peter > will have a decisive role in the overthrow of Voldemort, just as > Gollum did in the destruction of the ring, There is an obvious parallel between Harry/Frodo- both orphans, both very much caught in the struggle between good and evil, and both destined to play a huge rule in the take down of each series Dark Lord. But I agree with the whole Sam and Ron thing. Infact, I see more of Sam in Neville than any of the characters so far. Since there are no leading ladies(unless you count the movie's version of some of the female roles...bleh), I'm not really seeing a strong parallel for Hermione. But for Ron....hmm, he somewhat reminds me of Boromir. I can't be too sure of this because Boromir's character was not wholly developed, but they are both rather jealous types, it seems, and wanting to better their positioin/selves. Plus, as Ron is jealous of Harry, Boromir was quite jealous of Frodo. And if Ron ever unintentionally went bad, that would make the parallel stronger. I do hope Harry comes > through with both hands intact! Lol, I share your hope. Although I don't believe Harry will be making it through without any lasting scars...but hopefully they won't be the kind that bother him yearly. "Aldrea" From knvna at aol.com Fri May 24 01:46:02 2002 From: knvna at aol.com (knvna) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 01:46:02 -0000 Subject: Ron's Wand In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39049 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > I have often discussed the "Reality Rules" that JKR has stablished > for her world and, as you already guessed, this question has been > discussed before. But I don't mind. New imput is always welcome. If > not, our views tend to stale. And we wouldn't like that. Hi I am also new and prob. two years late to contribute too much. Just a small comment at the end as to why I do like the "wand selects the wizard theory." > Anyway, my own theory on the matter is that, even if Olivanders is > THE main expert in wands in Britain (or the whole world, for that > matter), he is, nonetheless, a bit of a loon, and holds some rather > strange (and scientifically and even magicaly improvable) theories. > The "wand choosing the wizard" seems, in my opinion, one of those > pet theories (like a car-seller telling you that "the car chooses > the driver", which I've heard, even if semi-joking instead of dead > serious). > My theory is not well-liked, though, since people tend to prefer the idea of thinking wands for some reason, so feel free to disagree. > does explain why people will happily change wands and accept other > people's and USE other people's without turning a hair. > An insulting map, doors that won`t open unless you asked politely, doors that weren`t really doors at all, but solid walls just pretending......If we are to accept these things in canon, why is it any more difficult to accept the "wand selecting the wizard" theory? Have a nice day. A.J. From lmccabe at sonic.net Fri May 24 17:38:40 2002 From: lmccabe at sonic.net (Linda C. McCabe) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 10:38:40 -0700 Subject: TBAY: cabbages revisited and a new suspect for 4th man Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39050 Athena brings her head up out of the water. She's been under the depths of the Aegean sea for what has seemed to be weeks trying to wade through TBAY discussions. As she surfaces and smells the salty air she shakes her head and realizes that there was one cannon she hadn't seen fly yet that she saw on the bottom of the sea. A new discovery on the significance of cabbages. It may not only be indicative of Polyjuice Potion, but may just be indicative that magic potions are being brewed. This appeals to the goddess, because frankly the thought that her beloved Arabella Figg has been condemned to live for a period of sixteen years continually brewing and chugging Polyjuice Potion seems a bit - excessive. Surely Dumbledore and Arabella could have come up with an easier way to come up with a Muggle identity to live in a suburban neighborhood. And then the smell of cabbages comes wafting by and Athena follows - she follows all the way to Diagon Alley and to the Apothecary. As Harry and Hagrid were visiting Diagon Alley back on his eleventh birthday: "Then they visited the Apothecary, which was fascinating enough to make up for its horrible smell, a mixture of bad eggs and rotted cabbages. Barrels of slimy stuff stood on the floor; jars of herbs, dried roots, and bright powders lined the walls; bundles of feathers, strings of fang, and snarled claws hung from the ceiling." Scholastic version SS p 80-81. Yes, it appears that maybe, just maybe the thought that Arabella cooked up various potions and stored potion ingredients in her root cellar could cause the house to smell of cabbages and it wouldn't necessarily mean that she had been continually ingesting the essence of some elderly woman for years and years. The goddess prefers the concept of an aging potion mentioned in GoF that the Weasley twins had used in order to trick said goblet. After all, an old lady that lives alone and doesn't work wouldn't really attract much attention in a neighborhood - a younger, unemployed woman who lives alone would. The goddess is still holding out for Arabella using an aging potion for years to appear to be a dotty old cat lady and then her younger true self could prove to be a romantic pair for the Dead Sexy Sirius Black. She sighs at the thought. The Arabella/Sirius SHIP is one that she desperately wants a ticket to ride on, she could care less about the Ron/Hermione or Harry/Hermione SHIPS cruising about her. Then Athena remembers another thought that came to her one night. It was the weaving of several TBAY theories together. Maybe the Fourth Man is not Avery after all. Maybe the Fourth Man is someone that Could Not Be Named because to do so would compromise another hidden plotline. A Man who we have conjectured about, but never really had proof of his existence. A Man who we think was angry enough to curse his wife and subject her to years of imprisonment. That of course would be the Cuckcolded Mr. Norris! What if...What if...Mrs. Norris, let's call her Iona Norris found herself horrified by living with a charming husband that became a cruel and despicable Death Eater? Possibly she found herself wanting to reject magic because she had come to associate it with only the Dark Side. She sought refuge in the arms of someone that was as far removed from Mr. Norris as she could. The loving arms of our favorite squib Argus Filch. Then after the attacks on the Longbottoms, Mrs. Norris realized that her husband was one of the culprits. She agonized over what to do. She was afraid that her infidelity would be discovered and she worried about her husband's activities. She had hoped that after Voldemort fell that things might get back to normal, but now...she realizes that Mr. Norris is just as cruel and unbalanced as ever. So, Mrs. Norris did what her conscience dictated to her. She turned state's evidence to the Ministry of Magic and delivered her husband and his accomplices. Mr. Norris had suspected that she was with Filch, but had more important fish to fry than to deal with that squib. Then when he knew he was about to be arrested he decided to seek his revenge on her. As the Aurors were approaching Mr. Norris, he turned his wand on his wife and forcibly transfigured her into a cat like Crouch/Moody did to Draco Malfoy. The difference is that he then followed the versions of many Old Fairy Tales and added an additional spell that only her true love could release her to her true form. (The goddess worries whether or not Yellow Flags will be thrown, but she continues unabated because she thinks Old Fairy Tales of true love in classics such as Beauty and the Beast should count for *something.*) Yes, that is why Snape cannot simply turn his wand on Mrs. Norris and transfigure her back like McGonagall had restored Malfoy from his ferret form. No, only Iona's true love can restore her to her human form. Possibly this will mean that only Argus Filch can make the potion using Mandrakes (what was essential to restore the transfigured to their original state as mentioned in CoS), because it will also need his love. Snape's attempts over the years to help Filch/Mrs. Norris have been futile because it has been missing the magical ingredient of Filch's love. And possibly, just possibly, if anyone had given a memory charm to Neville out of pity it would have been the squib-loving Mrs. Norris. That is if there was a memory charm at all. Athena saw the rebroadcast of the symposium on memory charms on closed circuit television and feels a bit perplexed by it all. She decides that her nectar and ambrosia is far more appealing in her own temple than wanting to venture into the conference room for Kool-aid, cheese whiz and zwieback and take the risk of having splintered paddles fly in her direction. And who might have set up the Longbottoms? Possibly it was Evil!UncleAlgie. Athena reviews the canon remarks about Algie and thinks that his intent may have been darker. Maybe even murderous. "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 handing me out of an upstairs window by the ankles when my Great Auntie Enid offered him a meringue and accidentally he 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. And you should have seen their faces when I got in here -- they thought I might not be magic enough to come, you see. Great Uncle Algie was so pleased he bought me my toad." Scholastic, SS p 125. I think Evil!UncleAlgie was trying to off the poor child. Because Neville *knew* in his repressed memory that Algie had been the inside man that allowed for the torture of his parents. Algie was afraid that Neville would remember and finger him as a supporter of Voldemort. Anyone else wonder about the name Algie and think that's so close to Algae? Something that toads swim in? I think if anyone is hiding inside Trevor that it would be Algie. After kicking myself in not recognizing the significance of Remus Lupin and Sirius Black's names, I cannot think that Algie/Algae & toad are simple coincidences. The Goddess settles back in her couch and allows the smell of incense being burned in her honor by her devoted Athenians to waft her into a lulled sleep. She hopes that the parchments that she threw into the TBAY waters will be received with kindness. Athena From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri May 24 17:39:04 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 17:39:04 -0000 Subject: Cruciatus and insanity Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39051 The recent Memory Charm Symposium over in TBAY raised the question of how the Cruciatus curse could've caused the Longbottoms to go insane. I thought I'd throw in my own $.02 on the matter. Cruciatus causes great pain without producing any injury that would explain it -- no bruises or burns or broken bones or anything. So I'm guessing the spell affects the brain and the nervous system directly. If that's true, then prolonged exposure might cause actual physical brain damage. To someone unfamiliar with modern medicine (like wizards, for example) the outward systems would look like madness. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri May 24 18:14:48 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 18:14:48 -0000 Subject: Wand choosing the wizard Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39052 The way I look at it, the wand does choose the wizard, but that doesn't mean the choice is either unique or permanent. A wizard can "grow out" of his or her first wand and be chosen by a new one. For example, we know Charlie Weasley must've gotten a new wand at some point, since Ron ended up with his old one. This raises the question of why Charlie didn't just keep his own first wand and buy a new one for Ron. My guess is, Charlie had grown out of his wand, so it wasn't working quite right for him anymore. When you work with dragons, you can't take chances with an ill-suited wand, so he had to get a new one that worked perfectly. And since there weren't enough funds for two wands, Ron got stuck with the hand-me-down. Also, just because you haven't been chosen by a particular wand doesn't mean you can't use it -- it just won't work quite as well. We've seen numerous wizards use someone else's wand: Sirius used Ron's and Snape's; Crouch Sr. used Harry's; Ollivander used Harry's, Cedric's, Krum's and Fleur's during the Weighing of the Wands; and Wormtail used Voldemort's to kill Cedric. From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 24 19:01:30 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 19:01:30 -0000 Subject: Coherence II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39053 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > Aha, now that is an interesting subject. IMO, JKR doesn't really > obey the rules as I understand them (not surprising as one can regard HP as subversive of the other genres it draws on).<< The most subversive thing about HP as a mystery series is that our detective NEVER correctly solves the main mystery. So far, the villain always turns out to be someone Harry never suspected and is unmasked by someone other than Harry himself. Book One --Quirrell reveals himself (I suppose we ought to be grateful he hadn't polyjuiced himself into Snape!) Book Two --Riddle reveals himself -"I am Lord Voldemort." Dobby fingers Lucius Malfoy. Book Three-- Sirius reveals himself and outs Pettigrew. Hermione outs Lupin, but he's *not* the villain Book Four -- Dumbledore reveals Crouch Jr. David: >>> My understanding of detective stories is that the clues given are unambiguous once you understand them right. <<< Since Harry himself never works out the right answer, the author is under no obligation to supply the reader with unambiguous clues, IMO. > JKR is fond of introducing details that seem to be insignificant but turn out to be mysterious. I always wondered why she had Scabbers bite Goyle, but now that we know that Goyle's father was a DE, I expect further revelations. But you want obvious clues to a mystery given in one book that aren't resolved until a later book, right? There's an example in GoF. We've been so busy debating the identity of the Fourth Man that we seem to have forgotten that the Third Man and the Second Man (who is a woman, mirabile dictu) are unidentified in the Pensieve scene. We don't *know* that they are the Lestranges, that's just a guess of ours, based on *clues*. Sirius tells us the Lestranges were at school with Snape but never that they were the ones who were caught with Barty. Voldemort only says that they were faithful, that they went to Azkaban rather than renounce him. The solution is not given in GoF and therefore I submit it is a cross-book mystery by your definition. Pippin From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Fri May 24 19:29:21 2002 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (lucky_kari) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 19:29:21 -0000 Subject: Can One Solve GoF? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39054 First of all, I've never heard of anyone doing it. But I've heard lots of people say that the end of GoF is no fair, that we have no way of figuring out what is happening. Pippin suggests that we don't have a right to figuring that out, since Harry never does either. These are not really ordinary mysteries, where the detective eventually follows the clues to their conclusions, and we should not expect it to function like an ordinary mystery. However, it seems to me, after much thought, that GoF is very solveable, if one had paid attention to all the details. The detail to latch on to and never let go was Snape's accusation that someone was stealing boomslang from the cupboard. Everything else could have meant a million different things, but the "boomslang" was proof that polyjuice was involved. So, how did we breeze over that? Assumed that for some reason Snape was still ranting over the CoS incident? No, that clue should have left the reader 100% sure that someone in the story was polyjuiced. Add that to Sirius' confirmation that Moody was attacked, Moody's breaking into Snape's office, and half the puzzle would have been solved. As for Moody's true identity, I can't believe how stupid I was to skip over as a mere unimportant detail the fact that Crouch had a son with the exact same name. But, oh well.... Eileen From naama_gat at hotmail.com Fri May 24 19:49:00 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 19:49:00 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39055 Hi, First, let it be said - I have nothing against FF. I don't read it, but I admire the creativity and imagination that produce it. I have no problem with other people reading it and enjoying it. OK? :-) OK. The reason FF is *not* like TBAY and certainly not like theory discussions, IMO, is that it is story telling. To really read a story means that you enter it. To do that, you suspend belief. That is, although I know that what I'm reading does not represent real events, I nevertheless accept (for the duration) the reality of what I'm reading. To clarify: I don't mean suspense of belief on the cognitive level, but on the experiential level. As long as I'm reading, I experience the reality that the author has constructed *as though* it was real. [That's the ideal. Often, the reading experience is not as pure as that, but still, I think it's a pretty close description of what it means to read fiction.] Now, in real life, I receive an impression of the people around me through the collection of memories I have of them. It's largely an unconscious process. That is, I don't recall all of the memories I have of a certain person, catalogue them, and then reach a logical conclusion as to his/her character. The general impression, the sense of "getting" who that person is, somehow arises out of a lot of little impressions and memories. Something in us evaluates the information we've gathered and reaches a kind of internal image (which, of course, can change once the impressions we continue to get challenge it). My point is, that in reading fiction, we also receive a collection of impressions and memories of the various characters, out of which we construct (in the same experiential way) a general impression of the characters. Since it's a process that bypasses logic (being, as I said, experiential), reading FF may indeed subvert the original impressions the reader has constructed through the cannon. For example. If I read PoU (the only FF I ever read), I ingest a large collection of impressions and memories of Hermione, for instance. I "see" her in various situations, saying and feeling and acting many things. Precisely because the story is well written, *I can't help* being sucked into the reality of the story. Now, other people may be able to seperate their impressions of JKR!Hermione from their impressions of Lori!Hermione. For me, it's difficult. The better the FF is, the more difficult it is to seperate, in my own mind, the canon character from the FF one. Possibly because I have really bad episodal memory (I think that's the term), which means that I remember facts, but not how or when I've acquired them. For instance, three days after I've seen a movie, I can ask the friend I've seen the movie with, whether she'd seen it. So, for me to read FF is simply asking for trouble. I get an impression of a character, I don't remember where it's from, it mixes up with the collection of canon impressions - and my general impression of the original character is subverted. See? Personally, I'm not even sure that reading FF affects theorizing. On the cognitive level, it's not difficult to seperate canon from FF. As far as I recall, I haven't read posts here that confused FF with cannon. But, like I said, I think that reading FF may subvert the reader's *genenral impression* of a character, thereby making certain actions seem more or less likely than are warranted by the impression s/he would have gained through canon alone. Naama From naama_gat at hotmail.com Fri May 24 20:06:03 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:06:03 -0000 Subject: FF and Canon Subversion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39056 Hi, First, let it be said - I have nothing against FF. I don't read it, but I admire the creativity and imagination that produce it. I have no problem with other people reading it and enjoying it. OK? :-) OK. The reason FF is *not* like TBAY and certainly not like theory discussions, IMO, is that it is story telling. To really read a story, means that you enter it. To do that, you suspend belief. That is, although I know that what I'm reading does not represent real events, I nevertheless accept (for the duration) the reality of what I'm reading. To clarify: I don't mean suspense of belief on the cognitive level, but on the experiential level. As long as I'm reading, I experience the reality that the author has constructed *as though* it was real. [That's the ideal. Often the reading experience is not that pure, but still, I think it's a pretty close description of what it means to read fiction.] Now, in real life, I receive an impression of the people around me through the collection of memories I have of them. It is largely an unconscious process. That is, I don't recall all of the memories I have of a certain person, catalogue them, and then reach a logical conclusion as to his/her character. The general impression, the sense of "getting" who that person is, somehow arises out of a lot of little impressions and memories. Something in us evaluates the information we've gathered and reaches a kind of internal image (which, of course, can change once the impressions we continue to receive challenge it). My point is, that in reading fiction, we also receive a collection of impressions and memories of the various characters, out of which we construct (in the same experiential way) a general impression of the characters. Since it's a process that bypasses logic (being, as I said, experiential), reading FF may indeed subvert the original impressions the reader has constructed through reading the cannon. For example. If I read PoU (the only FF I ever read), I ingest a large collection of impressions and memories of Hermione, for instance. I "see" her in various situations, saying and feeling and acting many things. Precisely because the story is well written, *I can't help* being sucked into the reality of the story. Now, other people may be able to seperate their impressions of JKR!Hermione from their impressions of Lori!Hermione. For me, it's difficult. The better the FF is, the more difficult it is to seperate, in my own mind, the canon character from the FF one. Possibly because I have really bad episodal memory (I think that's the term), which means that I remember facts, but not how or when I've acquired them. Three days after I've seen a movie, I can ask the friend I've seen the movie with, whether she'd seen it. So, for me to read FF is simply asking for trouble. I get an impression of a character, I don't remember where it's from, it mixes up with the collection of canon impressions - and my general impression of the original character is subverted. See? Personally, I'm not even sure that reading FF affects theorizing. On the cognitive level, it's not difficult to seperate cannon from FF. As far as I recall, I haven't read posts here that confused FF with cannon. But, like I said, I think that reading FF may subvert the reader's *genenral impression* of a character, thereby making certain actions seem more or less likely than is warranted by the impression gained through the canon alone. Naama From ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com Fri May 24 20:53:07 2002 From: ameliagoldfeesh at yahoo.com (ameliagoldfeesh) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:53:07 -0000 Subject: Cruciatus, thoughts, boggarts Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39057 The Memory Charm Symposium also got me to thinking about the Cruciatus Curse also. I attempted to see what had been said about Cruciatus on this list in the past and found that using the Search is still basically like looking for a needle in a haystack. And I see Marina has beaten me to the post saying: >Cruciatus causes great pain without producing any injury that would >explain it -- no bruises or burns or broken bones or anything. So >I'm guessing the spell affects the brain and the nervous system >directly.If that's true, then prolonged exposure might cause actual >physical brain damage. Exactly. And the physical reactions- such as the twitching, screaming, feeling limp after the curse is removed- come from the mind's reaction of the mental suggestion of pain. Two of the three Unforgivables seem to work fairly directly upon the mind of the victim. So it makes me wonder if perhaps the Avada Kedavra does too in some way perhaps. It makes me think of an old Avengers episode in which victims were killed off by their greatest fears. However, this makes me think of a boggart and I can't picture a boggart and the Killing Curse connected in any way (unless, of course, this is foreshadowing of a sort ). This brings a question: What do boggarts get out of frightening people? Is it a defense method? Do they feed on fear? Basically why do they try to scare people? Is Lupin just picking on a timid creature that wants to be left alone? ----- On a completely unrelated bit- a long long time ago, in a galaxy... well actually in March, Elkins offered me a SYCOPHANTS badge and membership packet which I had not yet accepted until now because I was too nervous and unTough to post just for the sake of accepting it. *relieved that Elkins is no longer wielding a big paddle and hoping she won't crack again* Hmm..although if one is to snap- that is the way to do it-quite entertaining. While joining up I'd like to join the Fourth Man hovercraft, even if it does look like it needs of a bit of cleaning up. One final thing- is Ellen the Pottering Beekeeper (who said: "Longbottom"...the hobbit who first introduced pipeweed to the shire") insinuating that it is *sweet little Neville of all people* who is keeping Stoned!Harry er, supplied?! I am *shocked* A Goldfeesh It was a woefully inadequate response and Artimus was instantly appalled with himself. ... "I don't like lollipops." No self-respecting criminal mastermind would be caught dead even using the word lollipops. Artimus Fowl by Eoin Colfer From skelkins at attbi.com Fri May 24 20:59:45 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 20:59:45 -0000 Subject: FF/SHIP: Authorial Intent, Canonical Plausibility, Draco/Hermione Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39058 A few thoughts on authorial intent, canonical plausibility, popular readings, and the extent to which speculation about Draco/Hermione can be said to derive from fanfic, rather than from the canon itself. Please note that I am not going to be making any arguments either for or against Redeemable!Draco or Draco/Hermione in this message. In this post, I am just talking about where these notions come from in the more general sense, and about the relationship between their appearance in speculation and their appearance in fanfic. I do hope to write a separate post dealing with Redeemable!Draco in the next day or two, but for reasons which I hope might be clear, I would like to separate that discussion somewhat from this one, which is more a question of general theory than of specific canonical argument. You will, however, wait in vain to see a Draco/Hermione shipping post from me. This is because I only ship big important *major* characters, like Mrs. Norris, the lunch trolley witch, Avery, and Florence. ----- So. First off, a few words about authorial intent. A while back, Penny cited a number of past exchanges that have appeared on this list in regard to the fanfic/fanspec debate. Now, one of my constant problems with these conversations is that they tend to start from the assumption that the author's intent is of supreme importance to the work itself, that it confers legitimacy on textual interpretation, that it is, in fact, the final authority on the work's true "meaning." This is problematic for me on a number of different levels, but primarily because I believe that it is complete and utter rubbish. My perspective on this has admittedly been quite strongly influenced by the fact that my academic background was in the field of classical literature: the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. "The Author Is Dead!" might be the battle-cry of certain movements within the field of literary criticism, but you know, I'm accustomed to dealing with authors who really *are* dead. I mean, these guys are *so* dead. They are so dead that you would not believe it. They aren't only merely dead, they're really most sincerely dead. Dead, dead, dead, as a Theory Bay post might put it. They're history. Their bones are dust, their temples have collapsed to ruins, and in the case of the Romans, even their *language* is dead. And yet their works still retain meaning and importance to very many contemporary readers. The works themselves are very much alive. So while as a classicist, one does indeed often try to reconstruct the cultural context as a means of determing the way in which the works might have been "meant" to be read at the time of their writing, to reconstruct that aspect of authorial intent, it is just such utter guess-work. We don't even know for certain how a Sophoclean drama would have been *staged,* for heaven's sake! It's all hypothesizing. And unlike many more modern authors, classical writers didn't leave behind much in the way of correspondence or memoirs describing their conscious intentions either. The temptation is therefore to adopt a critical approach which looks to the works themselves for meaning, while allowing the dust that was their authors' bones to rest in peace. So that's my bias. All the same, I think that it is a valid approach to living authors as well. Certainly it has been a very popular one for...well, for nearly a hundred years now, actually. I never got around to weighing in on Luke's Nel discussion questions from several weeks ago -- the ones which centered around the issue of what makes a book a "classic" -- but if I had, then I might have said this: (1) A book may be said to be a "classic" only to the extent that it succeeds in *transcending* many aspects of its author's original intent. If a literary work cannot outlive the specific cultural and historical context in which it was written, then it cannot possibly become a "classic," because it simply will not remain in circulation long enough to do so. To stand the test of time, a work must continue to affect readers strongly and deeply even once those readers are no longer rooted in the same time, place, or precise cultural context as the text's original author. (2) A book may also be said to be a "classic" to the extent to which it supports multiple interpretations. A literary work that cannot support more than one interpretation is not only likely to be shallow and uninteresting; it will also prove far too inflexible to stand the test of time. In short: Authors die, mores change, and Empires fall. But really good books remain really good books. Penny wrote (quoting one her own posts from some time back): <<< We all put our own spin on the characters. They're the same characters that JKR created. But, everyone looks at them in a different way.>>>> Yup. We call that "reading." Penny also cited herself here: <<<< Anyway, I'm completely opposed to the notion that there is only one JKR interpretation of these characters and books and I'm especially opposed to the notion that this one interpretation is discernible by people other than JKR herself.>>>> I'd go Penny one step further here. See, even if there *were* a "One True JKR Interpretation," I don't see why on earth any of us should allow knowing it to influence our reading of her text. Authors are very rarely the best interpreters of their own works, nor are their interpretations necessarily any more valid than anyone else's. Indeed, authors are often *notoriously* oblivious to the true import of what they themselves have written. The fanfic writers on the list will surely back me up here. I imagine that most of them have stories to tell about those times that their readers have commented on a powerful running motif, or a strong thematic implication in their work, and by doing so just *astonished* them, because they themselves had no conscious awareness of having put that in there at all. Everybody who has ever written fiction has had this happen to them. It's par for the course. It is also, in my experience, a large part of what makes the act of writing itself such a profound and personal endeavor. So while the author can shed light on her original intent, and while this is indeed often very interesting, it does not, IMO, bear any relationship to the actual merit or value of any given reading of a literary work. Penny wrote: > I still stand by my position that it is impossible to say that you > are reading a work with authorial intent in mind, unless you've got > firm unequivocal written evidence of authorial intent from the > author. I agree. But honestly, even if it were possible to have such unequivocal evidence, what difference would it make? Who cares how the author wants us to read her work? As far as I'm concerned, as soon as a written work is distributed, then the question of how it is to be read is out of the author's hands. Authors may indeed own the right to their works in the legal sense, but they do not own the rights to the reader's *interpretation* of their works, and they certainly have no power to dictate the reader's emotional response to what they have written. That is the inalienable right of the reader. Some people view this approach as hostile to the author. I do not consider it hostile to the author at all. I consider it *respectful* to the author. You see, the author already had the chance to affect the reader's interpretation of the text. She got that chance when she was writing the thing in the first place. She got to choose her plot, and her characters, and her dialogue, and even the very words by which all of those things were conveyed. We call that "writing," and *that* is the means by which writers go about dictating reader interpretation. Not through their interviews, and not through their authorized biographies. Through their *writing.* To grant the author's stated intent as conveyed through, say, an interview a higher authority than the author's own text is actually very condescending to the author, in my opinion. It's disrespectful, because it implies that the author is so deeply incompetent that her actual *writing* cannot be trusted to convey any coherent or legitimate meaning on its own merits. This is the reason that while I do find interviews with JKR interesting, and I do find them compelling evidence as support for various future speculations, I do not really consider them "canon." They are not canon. Canon is the text itself. Literary interviews and literary memoirs are often fascinating -- but they are not the same thing as literature. Okay. So now that I've got *that* off my chest, let's look at the question of canonical plausibility, shall we? ----- Back in early February, I posted a two-part essay about how readers go about evaluating canonical plausibility. Interestingly enough, I used poor old Redeemable!Draco himself as my primary illustrative example of the ways in which different readers might approach the question of how "plausible" a given speculation is. I do feel a bit embarrassed about asking people to go back and read my own old post like this, but as the only alternative would be for me to write it out all over again, I'm going to grit my teeth and do it anyway, and just hope that people won't think it too hideously Lockhartish of me. The relevant links here are: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/34802 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/34811 The first part is more relevant than the second, which returns at the end to a long running argument that I was having at the time about Snape and his old Slytherin buddies; I include it here, though, because it also contains my attempt to define my use of the term "reader subversion," which seems to have caused no small degree of dismay on the list over the past couple of days. ----- Now, on to my own take on the canonical "legitimacy" of the D/H ship. First off, I don't want to get too deeply into the canonical arguments for or against D/H in this post. For one thing, it's really not my favorite topic. For another, I'd like to try to focus on the theory itself here, rather than getting all caught up in the specifics. Just for the record, though, I will say that while I myself do not consider D/H to be very plausible at all, I don't consider it a "subversive" (ie, only possible as a consciously revisionist reinterpretation of the text) reading either. I think that it does indeed have some canonical suggestion, although I also agree with Jo in believing that the overall weight of canonical evidence militates against it. I would like, however, to point out that the very fact that D/H *is* such a very popular fanfic convention is compelling evidence to my mind that it is also a reading of the text that many people have found to be instinctive. Fanfic tropes don't come out of thin air. Occasionally they may develop purely within the fandom (the notion that Lupin lives in North Wales, for example, is AFAIK a "pure" example of "fanon"), but far more often, they derive from popular interpretations of the original text. This is the reason that one tends to find exactly the same concepts appearing over and over again both in fanfic and on discussion boards like this one, even among people who do not, er, swim in both seas. So to speak. Redeemed!Draco is both a popular fanfic protagonist *and* a popular focus of reader speculation because both of these phenomena derive from precisely the same source. That source, of course, is the canon. Jo wrote, in explanation of her assumption that Heidi's defense of the D/H ship must have derived from fanfic, rather than from the canon itself: > I was thinking that it was certainly unlikely that many readers (of > canon), would consider this a plausable possibility, without having > been influenced by any of a number of fanfics where both Draco and > Hermione have had their personalities altered in a way that would > make this possible. Mmmmm. Well, you know, I work in a bookstore. And while I'm at work I often find myself eavesdropping on kids discussing the Potter books. I do this because the question of how children read these books interests me, and as I have neither children of my own nor very much exposure to (or experience with) them, this is one of my few ways of finding out how the, er, target audience is actually interpreting the text. And you know what? Adolescent boys 'ship. They do, they really do. It's just a riot. It cracks me up. They sit around in our coffee shop eating cookies and engaging in romantic speculation all the *time.* It's just like they're talking about a soap opera or something. It's hysterical. And you know what adolescent boys like to talk about? Draco/Hermione. As far as I can tell, this is primarily because nearly all of them take it as read that Draco's got this *massive* crush on Hermione, and they're all quite naturally curious as to whether there is any chance at all that this crush could ever come to be reciprocated in canon. (For what it's worth, most of them seem to be hoping that it won't be.) This notion that Draco likes Hermione isn't even discussed among them as if it's some wild and out-there speculation. They're not even bothering to *debate* that. They're just *assuming* it. To boys of around the same age as the books' protagonists, the notion that Draco has a crush on Hermione -- and that he has had since PoA, if not before -- seems to be a completely instinctive and unself-conscious reading of the text. This really surprised me when I noticed it. But then I went back and checked out the relevant scenes, this time keeping in mind that Draco Malfoy is not an adult, nor even an older teen, but instead a rather immature and disturbed adolescent boy, and um... Well, yeah. I have to say it: I've come around to thinking that Draco's got a crush on Hermione too. I don't think that she reciprocates it at all, mind. But I do think that it's there. Of course, though, this all comes down to interpretation of character, which is always *highly* subjective, even more so than many other types of textual analysis. (This is, I believe, the main reason that shipping debates at times seem so much more unresolvable than other types of canonical discussion.) Every single bit of text that I interpret as evidence a crush, you might with equal validity interpret as evidence of Draco's disdain, dismissal, or even outright hatred of Hermione. Which of these readings the author actually *intends* is unknown, and furthermore, to my mind, it doesn't really matter all that much. The fact of the matter is that the text *itself* both can and does support both readings -- and that for whatever reason or set of reasons, the "crush" reading seems to be a very instinctive one for the series' adolescent male readership. Now, somehow I doubt that all of those twelve year old boys are reading a whole lot of fanfic. I think that they're probably just reading the books. Much like so many of the authors of D/H fanfics were doing, when they came up with the idea of writing fics about it in the first place. Popular readings don't just come out of nowhere. They are not spontaneously generated. If a particular interpretation proves popular with a wide range of readers, then you can bet that there is *something,* either in the text itself or in the way in which the text interacts with contemporary mores and beliefs, that is leading all of those people to read it in the same way. I'm not an H/D shipper myself, but I don't think that the concept is wholly unsupported by canon, nor do I think that it has developed as a pure expression of "fanon." I am certain that many readers first had the possibility of a future canonical Draco/Hermione ship drawn to their attention by fanfic. But I am equally certain that plenty of readers came to it of their own accord, due to factors like the Jane Austen parallel that Heidi has mentioned, the fact that Draco so rarely speaks directly to Hermione at all, the tone of his dialogue when he *does* address her (particularly in _GoF_), the tenor of his "warning" gloat at the QWC, their own real-life experience of how immature adolescent boys often behave around girls that they like, the suspicion that JKR might have a redemption scenario in mind for Draco, and so forth. In fact, I strongly suspect that these canonical suggestions were precisely what led to D/H's establishment as such a popular fanfic theme in the first place. If JKR really didn't want for quite so many people to read her Draco as a possibly redeemable character, or to see the possibility of a future D/H ship embedded in the text, then IMO she ought to have made a number of her authorial choices somewhat differently. As things stand, she has indeed written a text which encourages quite a lot of people to independently adopt such interpretations. If there is a disease here (which I personally don't think that there is, but which some people apparently do), then I don't think that fanfic is its cause at all. Fanfic is but one of its many symptoms. -- Elkins From catlady at wicca.net Fri May 24 21:00:55 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 21:00:55 -0000 Subject: Memory Charm / The Egg Problem / FB Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39059 Cindy wrote: << Now as for me, I'm still waiting for an answer to why the DEs didn't use the undisputed quickest and most efficient way to get the information out of Frank -- The Imperius Curse. >> Naama replied:: << Or, for that matter, why did Voldemort bother torturing Bertha? Veritaserum, in my opinion, are very problematic in that sense (as is the Time Turner). >> and Dave answered: << Maybe because they were under a memory charm, that only Cruciatus could break (as with Bertha J.)? >> 1) What happens when a person under Imperius is commanded to do something impossible? Such as fly off the roof without a broomstick? Such as "Tell me who will die first of the people who were at Christmas dinner in PoA" (i.e. tell me something you cannot possibly know, in this example because it is the future)? What happens when a person under Veritaserum is asked something that they don't know, or that they have a wrong sincere belief about? I believe that a person under a Memory Charm doesn't KNOW the stuff concealed under that Charm, so Imperius or Veritaserum would get the same result as asking about something the person never did know. I believe that that result is "I don't know". I suppose Wormtail got a lot of information from Bertha just by letting her prattle, and maybe Voldemort used some Imperius when he started questioning her, and noticed some clue that she had been Memory Charmed, and that's why he decided to break the Memory Charm, just in case it covered something useful. I am sure that GoF does not specify that Voldemort used Cruciatus on Bertha. Only in the voice of young Crouch does it say he 'tortured' her, and young Crouch didn't specify the type of torture. I don't think that just any old kind of torture will break a Memory Charm; I think that a Memory Charm Removal Charm must be used, and the pain, mental damage, and physical damage are Side Effects of the Memory Charm Removal Charm. I went on about this in post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/37120 Elkins wrote: << Neville ought to *know* what people in pain sound like, and that they really don't sound the slightest bit like a ghost orchestra playing on the musical saw -- which is what the mermaid song from Harry's Egg sounds like. So the Egg Problem still stands. >> MAYBE the sound of the Egg is like the appearance of a Boggart. IE to each listener it sounds like whatever is most repulsive to that listener. For Harry, it would not be his parents' dying screams: despite being emotionally painful, they are the Opposite of Repulsive. Zoe wrote: << There never was any claim that FB was the definitive guide to beasts. After all, it's a text book for pre-university students ... I'm quite sure that there are plenty of beasts that are too complex for the book. >> FB itself states that it is a 'definitive guide' to magical beasts. "The first edition of Fantastic Beasts was commissioned back in 1918 by Mr. Augustus Worme of Obscurus Books, who was kind enough to ask me whether I would consider writing an authoritative compendium of magical creatures for his publishing house..... The rest is publishing history. FANTASTIC BEASTS is now in its fifty-second edition." "Seventy-five species are described in the following pages, but I do not doubt that some time this year yet another will be discovered, necessitating a fifty-third revised edition of FANTASTIC BEASTS AND WHERE TO FIND THEM." From Edblanning at aol.com Fri May 24 21:43:56 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 17:43:56 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Coherence II Message-ID: <1a0.2c110a7.2a200e1c@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39060 David: >What I remain to be convinced of is that there are *clues* which make >no sense in terms of the book they are in, but do make sense in a >later book. > So, a challenge for you all: find something in an early book which is > a puzzle that is resolved in a later one. I repeat, I am *not* > talking about mere foreshadowings, I am talking about mysteries, and > I am *not* talking about mysteries that have been clearly presented > as such. I mean clues that with some thought and luck might have > given the reader help in cracking the puzzle in the later book. > What about Snape? Is he too obvious? Never mind, I think he'll do for my purposes. ;-) In any case I haven't talked about him for ages and I'm in danger of going into withdrawal. :-) He's just a little bit of a mystery, isn't he? :-) I don't think for one minute that he's a puzzle that's completely resolved by the end of GoF, but his mystery is beginning to resolve, or at least be elucidated, isn't it? In PS/SS we are presented with this unpleasant character, obviously out to get our hero, obviously there (in retrospect) to deflect our attention from the real villain, yet we are also presented with the idea that he is on both Harry's side, protecting him and on Dumbledore's side. We know also that he has some connection with Harry's parents and that he seems to have an undisclosed reason for hating Harry. It is strongly suggested he is well aquainted with the Dark Arts. Does the picture of Snape we are presented with in PS/SS make sense? Well, Harry can't figure him out, can he? I say he's a mystery. ("And when *I* use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.") In CoS, he plays a less active role, but his continued antagonism towards Harry re-establishes the mystery of his motivation, which seemed partially resolved by the unmasking of the real culprit in PS/SS. In PoA, the solution to the mystery just begins to be forshadowed, with the revelation of Dumbledore's resistance movement, or whatever we should call it; the fact that Dumbledore did have spies, that he was involved in the events surrounding James' and Lily's deaths. But Snape's role is still ambiguous. Is he motivated solely by the desire for personal revenge, or not? Is he questioning/defying Dumbledore's authority in his attitudes to Lupin and Sirius? In GoF, from the Pensieive scene onwards, the mystery both deepens and resolves further. Yes, this man with a reputation for interest in the Dark Arts *was* a Dark wizard. *But* he changed sides. And was involved, as a spy, in Dumbledore's resistance which had been introduced in PoA. And yes, his loyalty to Dumbledore is apparently being proved by his refusal to flee like Karkaroff and his unquestioning obedience in the face of whatever it is Dumbledore gives him to do on the night of the Third Task. Snape is an on-going mystery, little bits of the puzzle being filled in, or hinted at, but the final solution - and there has to be one (or more), doesn't there? - still to come. Could we have worked out in advance of the Pensieve that he was or had been a DE? Well, perhaps yes, as the question of whose side Snape is on has been dangled in front of us. What about the Dark Mark? References to it are built in throughout GoF, but as we do not know that DEs have the Dark Mark burned into their flesh, we are dependent on the revelation of Wormtail's Dark Mark in the graveyard at the very least in order to put two and two together. (Although I suppose if one were very astute, the idea of some sort of brand could have occured during the Pyjama Party scene). But going back, we've discussed this before, haven't we? Porphyria, in one of her moments of brilliant insight, once wrote: >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. Now, if Porphyria is right, she has found a clue to Snape's DE'hood, right there on our first meeting with Snape. And that sure wasn't obvious. (And incidentally, the mystery of Harry's scar burning is brought up also, to be resolved in GoF and I'm sure that wasn't opportunistic) But a reformed DE? No, I don't think that was very easy to anticipate. Not a reformed DE with no claim of Imperius. But yet, there again, JKR has put before us (right at the beginning of the series) the idea that people who now live outwardly respectable lives were once in Voldemort's service. In PS/SS, Hagrid talks about people apparently coming out of trances, and then in GoF we learn of the Imperius curse and see it in action. The fact that we now know Snape to be a reformed DE is consistent with the picture of him we have already built up. It is a bombshell, probably one we couldn't anticipate, but the groundwork was laid in the perhaps Dark, Slytherin-favouring, ambiguously motivated wizard who ostensibly seems out of place in Dumbledore's circle, but is trusted by him. Incidentally, I do think this challenge is slightly unfair. Given that we are just over half way through a series of books, if there *is* to be coherence, as many of us think there is, then we must expect the greater part of the earlier books to be setting up the mysteries which will ultimately be resolved at or towards the *end* of the series. I honestly wouldn't expect too many resolutions yet. If the mysteries are set up and resolved too quickly, then your charge of lack of coherence gains more weight. Similarly, I think coherence may be evidenced by the coming together and making sense of things which are not necessarily presented as mysteries. Now I realise that this does not pass the test of proving that coherence was intended and is not just the skilful opportunist use of past ideas, but just because we cannot *prove* coherence is intended by forward reasoning (which I, of course, think we can) it does not mean it was not. But there are plenty of mysteries around, particularly in the area of what Dumbledore knows, but doesn't say. What was Trelawney's first prediction? Why doesn't Harry ask more about his parents? What did they do? (I recall that JKR has said in interview that this will be revealed later). Why did Voldemort want to kill them and Harry? Which members of the family *did* Voldemort want to kill, precisely? What exactly has Arabella Figg been doing? Etc, etc.,etc.. Perhaps these are what you would call clearly presented mysteries. Perhaps you think some are ones whose resolution will be forgotten a la Fourth Man (how do we *know* she will not resolve that one?), but to me, these are all mysteries begging for answers, and I for one, am quite sure that those answers are all there, in JKR's little notebooks and files, ready to be brought out at the right time. Eloise. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri May 24 21:33:12 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 21:33:12 -0000 Subject: Coherence II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39061 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > Pip wrote: > > > > The following thoughts are based on what I know of 'Golden Age' > > detective stories and how I *think* JKR is using the techniques of > > that genre. David wrote: > Aha, now that is an interesting subject. IMO, JKR doesn't really > obey the rules as I understand them (not surprising as one can regard > HP as subversive of the other genres it draws on). > > My understanding of detective stories is that the clues given are > unambiguous once you understand them right. Umm... yes, a detective story should give you enough clues to unambiguously identify the murderer. But the clues in themselves do not have to be unambiguous - in fact the best type of clue should be ambiguous, so that you have to put several together. My own favorite Christie example (SPOILER) is a story where she writes a page or so of dialogue between two people who are completely alone. It is an apparently perfectly innocent discussion of the awful danger some other characters are in. At the end of the book we discover that the conversationees are the murderers. At this point, the book is flung in the air with a merry cry of SHE CHEATED! Then you go back to the conversation and discover that *every single line* can also be given the meaning of 'we'd better make sure these characters are in awful danger, hadn't we?' And, of course, the reader *could* have spotted the ambiguity the first time round, if only we'd taken a little more notice of the other clues. (END SPOILER) > So all the info is there to make an unambiguous > deduction - only *one* suspect could have done it, despite all the > red herrings. The art of reading the detective story is to identify > those clues that really do eliminate 90% of the suspects, as opposed > to merely appearing to. > > JKR doesn't do this, IMO. I believe the main reason why not is not > so much to do with witholding necessary information from the reader > or cheating; it is that the puzzle itself is less well-defined. A > classic murder mystery has a well-defined puzzle: identify the > murderer. With a book such as GOF, we don't even really know what > the puzzle is. No crime has been committed (it appears). At one > point Harry points out that *nothing* has happened to him all year - > except that his name was put in the goblet. It's not really true to > say that the identity of that person is the puzzle: it's only part of > the puzzle. The real puzzle is 'what is going on?' I agree with you, I don't think JKR is writing a detective series per se, any more than she's writing a school series, or a fantasy series. I just think she's using some of the classic detective story techniques, and where there *is* a puzzle, we do have enough clues to make an unambiguous identification. We had enough clues to identify Moody, for example. I also think that she is 'signalling' that Things Are Not What They Seem using classic detective story techniques. > > This means that although we have lots of clues - Moody's dustbins, > Crouch in Snape's office, etc. it's much harder to whittle down to > the ones that answer the question, because we don't really know what > the question is. That is, IMO, entirely deliberate (given that JKR has enough notes on the plots and characters to nearly fill her flat [1]). Harry's whole problem is that he doesn't know what the question is, what he really is, or why this maniac keeps trying to kill him. :-) This may be because Dumbledore thinks that if he does know, he'll cut and run/become an Evil Dark Lord/whatever; or in keeping with the books becoming more complex as Harry gets older, it may be the more RL type situation of nobody really *knowing*. Everyone's just doing the best they can, making plans as things come up, and hoping it somehow turns out all right. >(As it happens, in GOF we also have a whacking great > coincidence: Barty breaks Imperius and releases the Dark Mark just at > the time that Voldemort is planning to use him, IMO a bit of a > weakness in the plot as it gives us a number of valid clues that are > nevertheless incidental to the real conspiracy. In detective > fiction, coincidences should be red herrings. All that World Cup > stuff is not red herrings but it is a coincidence.) Is it? Quite possibly it is. I may be going completely off the rails here. But - why did Winky spend *months* persuading Crouch Senior? Why has she gone so completely to pieces? Why does she pull Barty not back towards the stand, but into the forest? Why does she let out a 'wail of despair' *not* when Barty says that 'She had failed him' [Crouch Sr] (and for a house-elf to fail her master is presented as the worst thing they think they can do) but when he says 'She had *almost* let me escape'. [my emphasis] (p. 593 - 5600, GoF, UK hardback) Pip writes: > > I think there is going to be a problem with that one, simply > because > > JKR seems to be following a 'Agatha Christie style' model. [I do > > *not* mean that she is 'copying' Christie, merely that I think I've > > recognised some of the techniques as similar] This means that the > > *clues* we are given *will* make perfect sense in terms of the book > > they are in: however, their actual meaning may be a complete > reversal > > of their apparent meaning, and they will almost certainly not > *look* > > significant. > Dave replies: > I'm not sure what you mean - you've convinced me later on that > Scabbers doesn't quite make sense in PS/COS. > He doesn't (and - I forgot the most significant clue of all about Scabbers - the fact that pupils are allowed to bring a toad OR a cat OR an owl, but nobody ever mentions that Ron shouldn't have a rat. Nice spellwork, Mr Pettigrew). However, while he doesn't make sense, you have to actively work out that he doesn't make sense, because a) Ron having some kind of pet makes perfect sense - a lot of the kids have pets (including Harry) and the pets play minor but noticable parts in PS/SS b) a kid's pet rat is not the sort of thing you would assume is significant and c) we assume that Scabbers is on Ron's side (he bites Goyle) and he's quite definitely not. > > This is interesting too, because the other things Harry does are: > - grow hair fast; > - cause glass to disappear; > - fly (or apparate?) onto the roof of his school: QTTA specifically > states that wizards *can't* fly unaided; Good one: since we have now also been carefully informed in GoF that apparation is so difficult that only 18+ wizards are allowed to even attempt it: anyone want to make any bets that Harry's ability to apparate will become vital in Book 5, 6 or 7? > - blow up (in the nicest possible way) aunt Marge; > - cause his cupboard to fly open. > > I don't recall any of these things being done otherwise, though I can > hear Faith (see HypotheticAlley in the admin files) saying we had no > need to hear about other examples. I have a lot of sympathy with Faith, I'm naturally inclined to reading books that way myself. She can be quite vicious with those heels, though... > > But the real eye-opener to me is that *Neville* bounced when his > uncle dropped him from a window; at Hogwarts, he is injured when he > does his spectacular jump in the flying lesson. I had always seen > this as a Flint. But... You're right, it does rather suggest that Neville is in some way suppressing his natural magical ability. > > You could argue that wandless wizard children can do magic that > Hogwarts manages to suppress or take away (Parallels to RL education > to OT!). (If true that weakens the PS Parseltongue clue as a clue > for CS, of course.) The ultimate example of this is then of course > baby Harry's defeat of Voldemort. Now what themes and messages does > *that* bring out? Now *that's* an interesting theory! And compatible with Neville...and at the moment, with Harry... Pip says: > > We also get clues about Scabbers true nature in PS/SS. Wizards and > > witches can turn into animals (and we don't actually *need* to know > > this until Book Three). Scabbers is Percy's *old* rat. Ron can't > make > > a transforming spell work on Scabbers (and we're told this twice). > In > > Book Two, the clue is that Scabbers is still around; and in Book > > Three, in case we've missed this (or don't know how long pet > rodents > > live) JKR sportingly explains that rats usually live two to three > > years. > Dave replies: > I like this. This is an example of what I meant, because Scabbers > *is* being signalled as unusual. But it frightens me too: if Harry > believes or doesn't notice something, then I do too. Every time. Which is a perfectly ok way to read the books! You'll then get the full effect of JKR's surprises, plus you'll be able to see Harry's development more clearly. It is written from Harry's POV, after all. My > only excuse is that at the time we are still very short of > information about what is reasonable to expect of a wizard's > familiar. True. I didn't start to wonder about Scabbers until the beginning of PoA [embarrassed grin] when we were given the hint about how long rats live. >BTW I still think that the reason Ron couldn't transfigure him > was a combo of a dud spell (courtesy F&G) and Ron's inexperience: > after all they do have to learn this sort of thing at school. That is definitely the garden path down which we're being led -and in fact, it's currently a perfectly valid interpretation, because we haven't yet been specifically told you can't change an animagi's appearance unless you are a more powerful wizard. :-) My own reason for thinking it's due to Scabbers transfigured status is that Ron has tried it twice, suggesting that he believes it *should* work. Hermoine also manages to turn her match silver in her first transfiguration lesson, suggesting that changing something's colour is relatively easy. ( :-)but I will concede that Ron didn't manage to do anything to his match :-) ). Incidentally, in That Which Shall Not Be Mentioned Ron manages to produce a 'flash-bang' effect around Scabbers. > > > (whose favorite bit of misdirection so far is Dumbledore's reply to > > Harry in PS/SS, when Harry asks if Snape hates him because he hated > > his father) > > Go on, you've got me stumped Ok. This is going to be a bit long though. Having PS/SS handy might also be helpful. And [disclaimer] we haven't yet got any *proof* that it is misdirection - so I could be wrong about any or all of it. But I hope I'm right, because it's *really* good writing if I'm reading it correctly. (From PS/SS p216 - 217, UK paperback) Dumbledore's rules for the conversation: "I shall answer your questions unless I have a very good reason not to, in which case I beg you'll forgive me. I shall not, of course, lie." Note that Dumbledore does *not* say 'I'll *tell* you I can't answer your question.' The reader assumes that because - the very first question Harry asks, Dumbledore tells him he can't answer it. Next section: 'Why can't Quirrel touch Harry?'. This does not at any point say that Voldemort is going to be unable to touch Harry. What we are told about Voldemort is that he doesn't understand love, that he doesn't understand that Harry will be marked by his mother's sacrifice, that he doesn't realise that it gives Harry *some* protection [my emphasis]. Dumbledore's last line is "Quirrel, full of hatred, greed and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason." Note that Quirrel is the subject of that sentence, not Voldemort. We are left believing that Voldemort cannot touch Harry because of the way the information about Quirrel, and the information about Voldemort, is mixed together. [cut to] Harry: "Quirrel said he [Professor Snape] hates me because he hated my father. Is that true?" Dumbledore: "Well they did rather detest each other. Not unlike yourself and Mr Malfoy. And then, your father did something Snape could never forgive... What is the most natural way to answer a direct question like 'Is that true?' It's with a 'yes' or a 'no'. Dumbledore does not tell us why, or indeed whether, Snape hates Harry. Instead, he tells Harry (truthfully) that Snape and James Potter did hate each other at school. Notice that in Dumbledore's comments about James saving Harry's life he always refers to Snape's hatred of Harry's father - not to Snape hating Harry. Now I don't know whether or not Snape does hate Harry. It is currently still just about possible that Snape the ex-spy is an incredibly good actor and that for some reason it's vital that Harry, (or everyone but Dumbledore and Snape), believe that Snape hates him. BUT, it is also possible that Snape truly hates Harry - for a reason that eleven-year-old Harry could not possibly be told. The point is that Dumbledore's reply leads us into believing that Snape hates Harry because of James Potter - and it never *says* that at all. Pip [1] 'her flat' is British English for 'her apartment'. As far as I'm aware, it has no suggestive meaning AT ALL. Unless you add coffee ;-) From catlady at wicca.net Sat May 25 00:07:46 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:07:46 -0000 Subject: QWC's Coherence II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39062 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > >(As it happens, in GOF we also have a whacking great > > coincidence: Barty breaks Imperius and releases the Dark Mark > > just at the time that Voldemort is planning to use him, IMO a > > bit of a weakness in the plot as it gives us a number of valid > > clues that are nevertheless incidental to the real conspiracy. > > In detective fiction, coincidences should be red herrings. All > > that World Cup stuff is not red herrings but it is a coincidence.) > > Is it? Quite possibly it is. I may be going completely off the > rails here. But - why did Winky spend *months* persuading Crouch > Senior? Why has she gone so completely to pieces? Why does she pull > Barty not back towards the stand, but into the forest? Why does she > let out a 'wail of despair' *not* when Barty says that 'She had > failed him' [Crouch Sr] (and for a house-elf to fail her master is > presented as the worst thing they think they can do) but when he > says 'She had *almost* let me escape'. [my emphasis] (p. 593 - > 5600, GoF, UK hardback) I'm working on a theory that all the stuff at QWC was *intended* as red herrings (or background info, such as the name Death Eater). Until she re-jiggered the plot to fix the infamous plot hole. I wrote about it in http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38421 From Zarleycat at aol.com Sat May 25 00:09:30 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:09:30 -0000 Subject: The Difference Between TBAY and FF (WAS FF: Speculation; Fanfic is like TBAY In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39063 > Here I must disagree. A Snape/Lily story is by definition all about > how Lily felt, and how Snape felt, and what James knew. The author's > portrayal of the emotions, convincing or otherwise, is the point. In > a TBAY Good Ship LOLLIPOPS post, however, despite the "decorative > prose", the point is to list points of canon that support LOLLIPOPS, > point out canonical problems that it answers, and list literary > parallels. There may be a lot of prose about Tabouli hanging Elkins > from the yard arm, and what George is doing while Tabouli is talking, > but the main point is to set forth an ordinary theory, which will be > treated as an ordinary theory in response. No-one responds to a TBAY > post by saying, "Your portrayal of Snape's bitterness was refreshing > and original. I almost felt sorry for him." (which is the way people > respond to FFs) Instead, admist a narrative of escape from LOLLIPOPS, > someone will point out literary reasons for avoiding LOLLIPOPS and > canonical problems in LOLLIPOPS. Agreed. All I'm saying is that FF and TBAY are two sides of the same coin. They are two different methods of connecting-the-dots. FF is written, at least in some cases, to try to present a logical explanation of what might have happened between characters, while maintaining a consistent, canonical viewpoint of those characters. And people reading that fic may very well walk away from it because they perceive canonical problems with it, or that it does not resonate with them because the author's interpretation of the characters cannot make them suspend the characterizations they have in their own mind. > Furthermore, the decorative prose is often quite self-referential, > adding a further layer of meaning to the posts. Elkins' latest attack > on Cindy is a clever spin on her T.S. Eliot-Neville post. As an > English student, I enjoy this sort of cleverness, the moments when > one goes - "Oh, that's what the author's up to!" The worm who hopes > not to turn, but is forced to, a concept Elkins was discussing, is > here made concrete. This is not fanfic, but a form of fictionalized > literary analysis, that, I have noticed, many academics love to > write. I was early introduced to the genre by a classicist who taught > me in junior high the basics of English, World History, and Latin. > His twenty pages on Vergilian meter would have done Theory Bay proud. > Yet, they were no way comparable to historical fiction about Vergil > and Horace, even though both Vergil and Horace had TBAY-like > appearances. He was a very good and entertaining teacher. > > >If you > > don't buy the Snape/Lily thing, no story will convince you. If you > > don't buy the Snape/Lily thing, no amount of theorizing will > convince > > you, either. > > Err... I don't know about you, but did you come to the HP fandom with > all your pet theories already formed and laid out? >Fanfic has not > changed my mind on anything, but theorizing has made all the > difference. I joined LOLLIPOPS because of canon discussion in TBAY > surroundings, and left it because of canon discussion in TBAY > surroundings. Before I joined HPFGU, I never even considered Neville > having a memory charm, for example. The reason one doesn't buy > Snape/Lily is one doesn't think the evidence is anywhere near > adequate. This has a lot to do with personal preferences etc. but > it's going a little too far, imho, to say that theorizing has no > impact at all. If so, what's the point of having this discussion > group? I enjoy reading posts where someone comes up with a completely new idea or notices a theme we haven't discussed or draws a parallel to other works of literature. The first time the Snape-as-vampire idea came up, I thought that people were quite thorough in the examination of the idea. Did that convince me that Snape was a vampire? No, and that's simply because we already have one "dark creature" with Lupin's werewolf, and I thought JKR would not draw from that well again. The thought of Neville having a memory charm was also something I had never thought of. It's very plausible to me, so, to answer your question, no, I did not come to this group with all my pet theories laid out. Perhaps it's merely a matter of style to me. If someone has a theory, by all means, put it out there for everyone to discuss, or not. And, if you want to have the theory set sail on a kayak, a ship, or a raft, and give it a name, appoint a captain, design colors for the flag, go right ahead. Obviously, this is a popular method of discussing the HP books. However, not being one with a background in fictionalized literary analysis, perhaps the cleverness that is inherent in some of these posts flies by my head while I'm busy getting to the meat of the theory. Marianne From pollux46 at hotmail.com Sat May 25 00:39:36 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:39:36 -0000 Subject: Trio's Auror Skills (WAS: Hermione: Panic Attacks & Tears?) In-Reply-To: <11c.117acb2b.2a1c7eb2@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39064 A bit of a late intervention into the Crouch's?Auror?comments thread here. I would have posted earlier but got caught up in that pesky thing called Everyday Reality. Bah! Exams coming round again. They tend to do that somehow. Like an annoying, buzzing mosquito that just * won't* leave you alone.And really, how much knowledge does one person * need* to cram into their head for a university degree? Or until they're, you know, a well?rounded, educated, culturally cultivated individual? Yes? What's that you say? Eh? Infinite? Huh. That is * not* what I wanted to hear. But yeah, err, hmmm. . .Where was I? Ah, yes. Aurors. And Crouch/Moody's career suggestions to Harry and Hermione. Yes, right. On track again now. Now, I know others have pointed out the suspect character of these suggestions? if somebody has just said what I'm just about to say please excuse the repeat. If they did I missed it. However, yes, not only do I also find Moody's comments suspicious in light of the fact that he is actually * Crouch*, but furthermore I am rather inclined to reject them completely as utterly unfounded ? well, at least on anything else but personal interest that is. I mean, what you've got to do here is look at the * context*, right? What are the events that surround these little compliments? And then let's try to extrapolate from those and then examine Moody's * motives* for saying them, ok? Because I am not really all that convinced that Crouch altruistically thought his pupils needed a bit of a confidence boost, to tell you the truth :--). OK, right, so: A. Harry. I * highly* distrust that Crouch/Moody is expressing an honest opinion here. The context is all * wrong* for that. I mean, right, ok, let's take a closer look, yeah? The relevant scene takes place in "The Egg and the Eye" chapter. What has proceeded it though? What has Harry just done that night to deserve such high praise from "one of the best" Dark?Wizard Catchers? Hmm, let's think, right, yeah, he: a) Got lost in his thoughts and mixed up emotions over the message of the Egg. Uh?oh. Big no?no for Aurors. Major breach of the Constant Vigilance rule. Never, ever drop your guard. You need to be prepared. You need to be alert and watchful. You need to not get your foot stuck in trick steps in the middle on the night when you're not supposed to be out of bed and when teachers who just happen to hate your guts are on the prowl. Which is of course. . . b) . . . exactly what Harry proceeds to do. In a step the skipping of which is second nature to Hogwarts students, for Pete's sake. With the exception of * Neville*, for crying out loud. c) Harry then dropped his Egg. His Golden Egg. The one he got from the First Task. The one that's a dead give?away to his identity. d) and his Map. The very map that is a dead give away to his present location. Oh no. Not good. Not good at all. e) Manages thus to attract the attention of the two very people who would simply * delight* in finding him in such a tidy little fix. Filch and Snape zoom up to the scene. f) There still is of course a ? very obvious-- way out of this beautiful mess. Accio. And, hey! Wasn't that the very charm he performed so impressively only a month or so ago? In front of a gasping, enthralled audience? When faced with a fire?breathing dragon? The one he practiced with Hermione * incessantly* for days? The very charm in fact that after all that he should be able to remember even when all else is lost? The charm he actually * does* use again once more in the books when he's got a Seriously Mad Evil Overlord and several Death Eaters after him? Urr, hang on a sec-- yep. That's right. The very one. So does Harry use this charm? Err, no actually. It, err, escapes him. So to cut a long story short, Harry messed up. Big time. Of course I personally think Harry is usually great in such situations. He usually manages fine. Totally together, keeps his cool, no problem. But here he has messed up and there's just no denying it. Except that Crouch/Moody * does* deny it. Huh, he actually does a lot * more* than deny it. He * praises* Harry. He tells Harry that Harry ought to consider taking up this kind of thing professionally. Because, well, you know, going on what he's just witnessed tonight it's crystal clear the boy is * made* for the job. A natural. Would never slip once. Just perfect for it. Snort. So I think Crouch is lying. But if he doesn't really consider Harry Auror material then why does he tell him so? Well, for one thing I think he's doing a nifty bit of misdirecting here. Reinforcing his previous skillful, little double?barrelled comments. Making sure Harry believes he's actually on the right track when he suspects Snape and Crouch Sr. And secondly, well flattery will got you anywhere, won't it? In this case it certainly works: "And Moody thought he, Harry, ought to be an Auror! Interesting idea. . ." Yeah, I'm guessing C/M just won himself a nice batch of popularity points from Harry. Anything more would you say? Hmmm. . . well. . . It was a narrow miss for Barty, wasn't it? I mean his name was * right there* on the Marauder's Map, on * Harry Potter's* bedside table all along. So easy to just think "Hmm, somebody at Hogwarts is out to get me. Huh. Well, lets just see what the Marauder's Map has to say about this shall we?" But, now, ah, * now*, after a highly profitable night?time stroll this very useful tool is where? In Crouch's own * pocket*! I mean, *pheeeeeeooouw!" Close call! So I think Crouch is mocking Harry. "Yeah" he's probably thinking. "That's just the thing. We could * do* with a few more Aurors like that!" And ooh, wait a sec! What about all those scenarios those guys down at the Neville symposium are cooking up too? Like the one according to which Crouch Jr knew the Longbottoms and that's how their torturers got to them. Frank gave Crouch the keys to his house, perhaps? Just offered them over willingly in the same manner Harry is now relinquishing his one real weapon against his unknown enemy * voluntarily*? Being his father's son I don't find it hard to believe Crouch Jr could have got valuable information or items simply *landing* in his lap just like * that* in the old days. Duh, those dumb Aurors! Yeah, this boy would fit right in. The indications for such an understanding of the comment are all there: "Moody's magical eye whizzed over the entire surface of the map. He suddenly looked alarmed. "Crouch?" he said. "You're ? you're sure, Potter?" "Harry could tell that this news meant something to Moody, and very much wanted to know what it was." "Put it this way, Potter," Moody muttered finally, "they say old Mad? Eye's obsessed with catching Dark wizards. . . but Mad?Eye's nothing-- * nothing*-- compared to Barty Crouch." (Oooh, I love this comment! Brilliant, simply brilliant!) "Good boy," growled Moody. "I can make good use of this. . . this might be * exactly* what I've been looking for . . ." ". . . Moody still examining the map as though it was a treasure the like of which he had never seen before." So, here we've got Harry's seventh gaffe on the night. He handed over his only indication of the truth behind all the strange happenings at Hogwarts to one of his very worst enemies. And, oh, doesn't Crouch know it! Anyway, point is Harry, though generally pretty good in the secretly sneaking around the school department, is having a bit of an off?day during this particular scene and therefore Crouch/Moody's enthusiasm at his abilities is rather over?the-- top. However we are not lacking in other reasons to explain them. And now: B) Hermione. Well, this scene doesn't provide nearly as much reader--satisfaction, but there's enough there to generate scepticism, certainly at least for the second (or third, or fourth, or fiftyfourth :--) ?time reader. This scene is just after Crouch Sr's disappearance. Right. Let's take it one phrase at a time, ok? First Ron makes his Disapparate blunder. Then Hermione corrects him. Now, it isn't really as if Ron actually didn't * know* you can't Disapparate on the grounds. He just isn't thinking straight. Hermione does well to correct him, but it's hardly any astounding feat of genius. Heck, even the * reader* knows * that*! It's been drummed into us soooooo many times! Hermione continues: "There are other ways he could have disappeared, aren't there, Professor?" Frankly I fail to be impressed. I mean she's simply stating the obvious here, isn't she? Crouch Sr is not anywhere on the Hogwarts grounds, yet he could not possibly have Disapparated from them. So he must have disappeared some other way. Isn't it, well, self?evident? Or at any rate it's definitely no marvellous example of Sherlock-- Holmes--like unpercedented logical deduction. So where does all the "your mind works like an Auror's" stuff come from? Personally I think Crouch is attempting another subtle bit of misdirection. Hermione in this instance has picked the wrong thread. Her starting point (indicated by Ron) is that Crouch Sr himself was responsible for his own departure. That he left Hogwarts of his own free will. This of course is not quite how things happened. But Crouch/Moody wants to set the trio off on wrong leads. He * wants* them to reach totally useless conclusions. So he encourages this train of thought. But huh! Well, lookee here! Two minutes later Hermione's back on track : "But under his own steam? Or because someone made him?" Ron picks up this tread: "Yeah, someone could've ? could've pulled him onto a broom and flown off with him, couldn't they?" (A bit of an extreme suggestion perhaps, but hey! Ron could've come up with something wilder. How about: "Oh, I know! Obviously our Defence Against the Dark Arts Professor, who is actually Crouch's believed -- to --be --dead son using Polyjuise Potion to disguise himself, must've killed his father and then turned him into a * bone* and then * buried* him in the Forbiden Forest! Oh, yes! That sounds likely!) Well now Crouch Jr does not like the way this little chat is going. He grudgingly concedes the point of course: "We can't rule out kidnap," growled Moody" What else could he do? But he's hardly encouraging the idea, is he? So to wrap all this up it would seem to me that Crouch/Moody hands out Auror praise when people are acting in a way that promotes his own wicked little plans and definitely not when they're actually getting hot in the chase. In fact I'd say that his comments tell us nothing about any of the Trio's DADA abilities whatsoever. I note however that personally I'd have to say that ?judging from HRH's record so far --I agree with Dave. All three together: now that would make one hell of an Auror. But I still hope not one of them really will chose * that* profession. Charis Julia. From margdean at erols.com Sat May 25 02:46:13 2002 From: margdean at erols.com (Margaret Dean) Date: Fri, 24 May 2002 22:46:13 -0400 Subject: A New (?!) Question re Harry and Snape References: Message-ID: <3CEEFAF5.725CF589@erols.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39065 My (bright, articulate) twelve-year-old son came up with this one, and I found it intriguing, nor do I remember its ever being discussed before: Would Snape like Harry any better if Harry had been Sorted into Slytherin? (Presumably by choice or at least his own consent.) Have at it . . . --Margaret Dean From eclipse02134 at yahoo.com Sat May 25 07:57:49 2002 From: eclipse02134 at yahoo.com (Eclipse) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 00:57:49 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Opening For a Gryffindor Chaser In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020525075749.58837.qmail@web20802.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39066 > I wrote: > > > > I hadn't realised this until I was thinking > about > > > it the other day. Angelina Johnson is a chaser > for the > > > Gryffindor team. In Goblet of Fire she says that > she > > > put her name in the goblet. This means that she > is a > > > seventh year and is done with her schooling at > the end > > > of the book. This means that there is an opening > for a > > > chaser as well as keeper on the Gryffindor team. > Amy Z wrote: > > Still, we don't *know* the years of all (any?) of > the Chasers, so > there could be a spot. Eclipse, are you thinking of > trying out for > it? > > No I'd fall off my broom. I thought that it might be another way to develop character. Ron could be keeper and maybe Parvati or Lavender turn out to be a great chaser. Eclipse __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat May 25 15:10:03 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 15:10:03 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Madame Lestrange is Loose! Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39067 Pippin relaxes idly in bow of the LOLLIPOPS lifeboat. She and the Snapetheories have watched the carnage on shore with bemused detachment. So much to-do and disturbance over lowly Longbottom. Who'd have thought it? But now the bay is calm again. "Ars Longa, Vita Brevis," she sighs, and lovingly stroking her black iridescent featherboa, she picks up her tape recorder and begins to dictate another submission to the on-shore Coherence II thread. Suddenly there is a faint . Behind her dark glasses, Pippin blinks in surprise at her newly materialized visitor. He is a a dapper, middle-aged fellow with a certain continental air, clothed in the height of fashion for 1934. His forehead is high, he is somewhat balding and somewhat plump, and his features are distinguished by his deep dark eyes and by a prominent mustache, waxed into points, of which he seems inordinately vain. "Excuse me," says Pippin politely. "Are you by chance lost? This Bay is for HP theories only." "Madame," he says, in slightly accented English, " *I* am H.P." He produces his card with a flourish and hands it to Pippin with a polite bow. Her eyes widen as she reads the name engraved thereon: "Hercule Poirot." "AIR-coo-lee Pwa-ROH!" Pippin exclaims phonetically. "Agatha Christie's greatest detective!" Poirot bows again, hiding his pleasure at this praise. "Madame is too kind. But I perceive that despite her look of nonchalance, Madame is distressed. Might I perhaps render some assistance?" <"((><<"((><<"((><<"((><<"((><<"((><<"((><<"((><<"((><<"((>< "Well, now that you mention it," says Pippin, coming to the point of the post before the Mod-squad chopper drops a load of Howlers on her," it's the woman in the Pensieve scene. She's Madame Lestrange, isn't she? I mean, it seems obvious." "Yes, indeed, Hastings, eh,* pardon*, Madame Pippin. Something so obvious, it must be, how you say, a red flag." "Yes. It's too simple. It's so simple, it's hardly a mystery at all. Where are the misleading clues, the red herrings, the false leads? I mean, there's no one else it *could* be, is there? Is there?" "Let us remain calm, Madame, and put the little grey cells to work. Perhaps it is, after all, but a simple mystery, *pour amuser les enfants.* But no, of course that can not be. The great Joanne Rowling does not write children's books. There must be more." The deep brown eyes suddenly crinkle with amusement. "Oui, I have it. You seek the red herring, Madame, but it is already before your eyes." "That would be a typical Christie ploy! But I'm afraid I don't follow." "But it is so very simple, Hastings! Eh!, *pardon*, Madame Pippin, of course. This matter of identifying Madame Lestrange, it is the flourish of the magician's wand, distracting the eye from the matter which the magician wishes to conceal. You concern yourself with finding out the name of this mysterious and powerful Death Eater of the heavy-lidded eyes and the queenly manner, and when you have discovered it, you pat yourself upon the back and look no further. Is it not so? But, I, the great Hercule Poirot, I will look further. Tell me, what else do we know about this lady?" "Well, Sirius tells us she was in school with him and Snape. But she's in Azkaban now. Voldemort says so, too. 'Entombed' there." "A curious choice of words, is it not? But this Voldemort, He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named, need we believe all he says? And Sirius Black, he also thought, did he not, that young Barty Crouch had been entombed in Azkaban, and yet he proved mistaken, n'est-ce pas?" "Good heavens! You don't mean she's escaped!" "I cannot rule out the possibility." "Then *she* could be the next DADA teacher!" "Madame Pippin! We have already had a Death Eater disguised as a Hogwarts teacher. No, we must look else where. Closer to home, I think. Perhaps in Little Whinging?" "Ooh! Mrs. Arabella Figg?" "Yes, I think we will find her identity has been stolen." "It's an intriguing theory, Poirot, but we need canon here at Theory Bay." "But of course, Madame." Poirot produces a much thumbed copy of "Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone. "You see, in Chapter Two, we learn of Mrs. Figg, she of the cabbage-smelling living room and the great fondness for the cats. But it seems she has broken her leg. And in Chapter Three, our Mr. Potter spends an afternoon at her house while Dudley is being taken for his Smelting's uniform. And he notices, does he not, that Mrs. Figg is no longer as fond of her cats as she once was, and that she lets him watch television, and gives him chocolate cake, with the implication that she has never done so before." "You mean Madame Lestrange has been impersonating Mrs. Figg for four years now? But why? And how did she get out of Azkaban anyway? She can't be another unregistered Animagus, I hope. And why would any self-respecting Death Eater masquerade as a Muggle?" "On the orders of her Master, who engineered her escape with the help of the unfortunate Professor Quirrell. For one who could break into Gringott's, surely Azkaban would pose no difficulty. And so, you see, it explains the broken leg. For how could Lord Voldemort know how safely Harry Potter was protected on Privet Drive unless he had tested those same protections?" "Mrs. Lestrange!Figg broke her leg trying to get at Harry?" "I fear so." "But why would Voldemort lie to the Death Eaters and tell them she was still in Azkaban?" "Because he has told no one, not even young Barty. For he trusts no one, not even young Barty. Soon, he thinks, she will be free of her tedious duties on Privet Drive, and he will set her at other prey. His unwilling, treacherous,backsliding Death Eaters, whom he would not trust as far as he could throw a Quaffle. Is it not brilliant? Who but I, Hercule Poirot, could see through such a devious scheme." "But Harry didn't die that night. And that means--she's still there!" Pippin exclaims, like one of the Three Bears. "And that means--" "Yes, indeed. The, how you say, Deadsexy!Sirius, is on a collision course with the Deadsexy!Madame Lestrange. The sparks will fly." "Bangy!" says Pippin reverently. "All it needs is an acronym." "That, I leave to you." And with another courtly bow and a faint the great detective disappears. Pippin thinks for a moment, then pulls out a can of white paint and begins to paint new letters on the side of the LOLLIPOPS lifeboat. E.L.V.I.R.A. Evil Lestrange Villainess Is Replacing Arabella <"((><<"((><<"((><<"((><<"((><<"((><<"((><<"((><<"((><<"((>< Pippin who has observed that in Rowling, as in Christie, the villain is often a young man thought to be of good character, whom no one ever suspects. :-) From kaiv at hot.ee Sat May 25 12:11:48 2002 From: kaiv at hot.ee (redone_thegreat) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 12:11:48 -0000 Subject: Cruciatus and insanity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39068 --- "marinafrants" wrote: > The recent Memory Charm Symposium over in TBAY raised the question of > how the Cruciatus curse could've caused the Longbottoms to go insane. > I thought I'd throw in my own $.02 on the matter. /snip/ A medically totally uneducated opinion, but exposure to those levels of pain for a sufficient length of time would have an impact on one's psyche. Maybe the mind's attempt to separate itself from the body's suffering, to hide in itself. -Red From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Sat May 25 15:13:50 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 15:13:50 -0000 Subject: Memory Charm / The Egg Problem / FB In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39069 Reading this post reminded me of a few things - now please forgive me as the cannon is many miles from me so I'm operating on memory here. > I believe that a person under a Memory Charm doesn't KNOW the stuff > concealed under that Charm, so Imperius or Veritaserum would get the > same result as asking about something the person never did know. In Stephen Fry's book "the liar" (good read - but not for the squeamish) there is device that forces you to tell the truth. However it describes lies as threefold... first - moral lies, you know the answer but are concealing it, for example did you cut down the cherry tree, ans. no george did it. Then there are lies of ommision "what is the french for apple" ans. "I don't know". You may well have been told that it is pomme, probably we all were exposed to this knowledge at some point, but we don't recall it. thirdly - falshoods that you believe to be true. Something that is not so but you have been told is and you believe it. Interestingly you may well be able to tell yourself something until you belive it to be true and this may act the same (i.e. the classic 'just william' example where he convinces himself that a cat broke the greenhouse window and not him - to the extent that he is visably and moraly scandalised when he is accused of it. His reaction is just that of someone who saw the cat do it for real) >From the description in GoF of Barty Crouch under veritaserum he was only responding to the first type of lying. He was compelled to tell what he knew to be true. Not all that he knew (this would take forever) nor would it be possible for him to say where 'you know who' was if he had been told falsely. The compulsion to bare all is the same for imperius, you want to comply - I want to remember the subjenctive of the verb continuo, I can't - but I'm fairly sure I was taught it. In all the debate on these things there seems to be little focus on how subtle lying is, and how variable memory. To drag a little philosophy of mind in - how do we know\remember something in the first place. And if these potions\curses work on the mind then which part of the mind. Just a thought. > MAYBE the sound of the Egg is like the appearance of a Boggart. IE to > each listener it sounds like whatever is most repulsive to that > listener. No, the egg sounds like underwater singing - otherwise how would the seperate champions all reach the same conclusion. It's just that things sound odd in a different media (star trek three - the voyage home anyone? - you know the one with the whalesong) > FB itself states that it is a 'definitive guide' to magical beasts. > "The first edition of Fantastic Beasts was commissioned back in 1918 > by Mr. Augustus Worme of Obscurus Books, who was kind enough to ask > me whether I would consider writing an authoritative compendium of > magical creatures for his publishing house..... The rest is > publishing history. FANTASTIC BEASTS is now in its fifty-second > edition." This is the most powerful argument IMO that the books can't be used as a good resource. They arn't complete. Things luipn brings in to DaDa don't appear in the book (a smidge of indulgence for one who has been so cruely seperated from his cannon as well as FB and QTTA and can't remember which ones). The last one is just a pedant's gripe, they are very useful for fleshing out the potterverse and may well give examples of things we will see more of (or for the first time) later - but as a difinitive resource, err no. I don't think they defend against yellow flags either, but don't respond to that as we'll be here all night. Please take all of this with a pinch of salt, Stephen Fry isn't a psycologist and his opinions on lying are just that - opinions. But may have some significant implications. James, xxx From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Sat May 25 16:49:39 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 16:49:39 -0000 Subject: A New (?!) Question re Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <3CEEFAF5.725CF589@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39070 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Margaret Dean wrote: > My (bright, articulate) twelve-year-old son came up with this > one, and I found it intriguing, nor do I remember its ever being > discussed before: > > Would Snape like Harry any better if Harry had been Sorted into > Slytherin? (Presumably by choice or at least his own consent.) > > Have at it . . . It's hard to tell without knowing why Snape hates Harry, or pretends to hate Harry or whatever. Dumbledore neatly avoids answering Harry's question, so we don't know if it has something to do with Harry reminding him of James, or being quintessential Gryffindor. But I'm sure he would treat him better if he'd got some small apology at the end of year 1. Irene From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat May 25 19:57:53 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 19:57:53 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Madame Lestrange is Loose! In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39071 Pip considers nervously the effect of her recent postings. She's still a newbie in this world, unable to tell yet when she's proposing something new, or when she's suggesting something that has been talked to death. She gazes out across the bay at all the ships, looking longingly on the Good Ship LOLLIPOPS. 'Too big for me right now', she thinks. 'Too many already explored decks and cabins. After all, I don't even know what 'Kool-Aid' tastes like.' Then Pip hears the sound of voices, carried over the bay. They seem to come from a small lifeboat on the side of the ship, but she can't see clearly who is talking. Suddenly Pip remembers that she is, after all, in Theory Bay, and whips out her Omnioculars. A young woman is lounging in the lifeboat, talking with a small, dapper Belgian. "Well, now that you mention it," says the young woman," it's the woman in the Pensieve scene. She's Madame Lestrange, isn't she? I mean, it seems obvious." "Yes, indeed, Hastings, eh,* pardon*, Madame Pippin." Poirot replies. 'It does seem obvious.' thinks Pip. 'Hardly a matter for HP's little grey cells.' Pip feels a gentle tap on her shoulder. She freezes; then turns nervously, afraid she'll find herself facing Cindy and her paddle. But the only person there is a gentle, round faced old lady, with white hair. "Excuse me, my dear, but could I borrow your Ommioculars for a moment? I'm sure there's a Jobberknoll somewhere about. Such sweet little fellows." The old lady takes the Omminoculars, but rather strangely, trains them on the lifeboat. Pip hadn't realised that there were Jobberknolls on the LOLLIPOPS. More of the conversation drifts over the water. Pippin is still discussing Madame Lestrange: "Good heavens! You don't mean she's escaped!" Poirot sighs deeply."I cannot rule out the possibility." Mrs Lestrange escaped? Pip shudders. But where would she hide? Poirot continues: "Perhaps in Little Whinging?" Pippin's voice exclaims: "Ooh! Mrs. Arabella Figg?" 'Mrs Figg! But no;' Pip thinks, 'surely the canon is against that possibility.' "Do you really think that, dear?" says the old lady. Pip realises that she must have exclaimed aloud. "That's very trusting of you. But then, I do find that young people are so inclined to be trusting." Poirot is still talking: . "You see, in Chapter Two, we learn of Mrs. Figg, she of the cabbage-smelling living room and the great fondness for the cats. But it seems she has broken her leg. And in Chapter Three, our Mr. Potter spends an afternoon at her house while Dudley is being taken for his Smelting's uniform. And he notices, does he not, that Mrs. Figg is no longer as fond of her cats as she once was, and that she lets him watch television, and gives him chocolate cake, with the implication that she has never done so before." "But... but that's it right there! says Pip. "Harry doesn't come to any harm from his visit! For cryin' out loud, Mrs Figg even gives Harry chocolate cake! That doesn't sound like a vicious Death Eater!" The old lady is smiling gently at Pip. "It does seem very sad, doesn't it, that such an innocent action as giving an orphan child cake, might in fact not be what it seems. But you see, dear, even in my little village of St Mary Hogsmeade, I have found that there is a great deal of wickedness in the world. Have you looked at what the canon actually says?" Pip pulls out her copy of PS with trembling fingers, and looks at Chapter Three again. The line reads: 'She let Harry watch television and gave him a piece of chocolate cake...' ( Pip suddenly pauses in horror) '... that tasted as though she'd had it for several years.' Pip stares speechlessly at the old lady, who blushes modestly. "It is interesting, isn't it," she says " that the cake tasted odd. And I'm afraid that Professor Dumbledore hasn't yet been so kind as to explain exactly what form of protection Harry is under. So we don't in fact know whether or not he is protected against poison within the protection zone." She pauses thoughtfully. "And there is also another incident, that reminds me very much of the butcher's boy, and how he was always flying too low on his broomstick. So that when he knocked poor Bertha down everyone simply assumed it was the boy's carelessness, rather than considering whether it might not be a spell." Pip stares horror struck into those innocent, china blue eyes. "You mean... you mean Dudley, don't you? Who knocked Mrs Figg down as she crossed Privet Drive. Which was *after* she'd broken her leg." The old lady gives her a dimpled smile. "Yes, dear, that *is* what I mean. Would you like your Omminoculars back? I think you might find that you're going to need them." Pip "Ah!" said Miss Marple. "But I always find it prudent to suspect everybody just a little. What I say is, you never really *know*, do you?" The Murder At The Vicarage, by Agatha Christie (which also includes Mrs Lestrange). From Cornet83 at aol.com Sat May 25 20:50:19 2002 From: Cornet83 at aol.com (mariahisabel) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 20:50:19 -0000 Subject: The Unforgivable Curses, namely Avada Kedavra (was:Re-Cruciatus and Insanity) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39072 Hello All! I've been lurking on this list for some time and have never posted much of anything simply because there are so many brilliant people on this list that one of them always posts exactly what I was thinking before I do and I see no point in sending a one-liner "I agree" post (good thing I don't too, otherwise The Moderators would be after me:) However, in the recent (small) discussion about the unforgivable curses (which has been overshadowed by the memory charm battle raging on) I had an idea. Marina says: <<<>>>> and someone else (sorry I dont know who) replied: <<<<>>>> to which A goldfeesh said: <<<<>>>> And here's where my great idea comes in:) I apologize in advance if it has already been suggested before and of course, anyone is quite welcome to try and shoot it down with a great big canon:) The cruciatus curse causes pain to the victim only in their mind. As Marina pointed out, there is no outward cause for the pain the victim experiences. Well, if a curse can make the mind believe it's in horrible pain, can't it also make it believe it is dead? Ok, stay with me, Im going to go off a bit but I'll come back to the point in a second:) In the movie "The Matrix" the hero of the story (Neo) is confused when, in coming out of a computer training program, (in which his mind is receiving signals via computer that he is actually participating in the training) he is physically hurt because his mind believed he was. He questions Morphius at this time (his mentor/guide) and I'm going to type the dialogue between them as best as I can remember: Neo: I thought it wasnt real Morphius: your mind makes it real N: so, if you die inside the Matrix, you die in real life? M: the body cannot live without the mind The concept is that, if your mind is made to believe you are dead, even if you are physically well, you die anyway. Perhaps that is what the killing curse does. It does not "harm" you in any way, but it makes your brain think you are dead and in turn the brain ceases to function. No brain, no life. That's why it is aimed at the head (Harry's scar) and perhaps why it is unforgivable...the person would otherwise be quite healthy, except for the fact that their mind died. In fact, I believe that in GOF when we are given background info of the Riddle murders it states that all 3 bodies were found to be in good health, except for the fact that they were dead(sorry i dont have the exact quote, far too lazy to get the book right now:) so anyway, thats my theory on how the killing curse kills and why it is unforgivable as opposed to other curses which could kill other ways. once again apologies if it has been suggested before. TTFN mariahisabel (who realizes that the explanation she gave of the movie above will completely confuse everyone if they have not already seen it) From dicentra at xmission.com Sat May 25 21:57:50 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 21:57:50 -0000 Subject: Coherence II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39073 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "bluesqueak" wrote: I forgot the most significant clue of all about > Scabbers - the fact that pupils are allowed to bring a toad OR a cat > OR an owl, but nobody ever mentions that Ron shouldn't have a rat. > Nice spellwork, Mr Pettigrew). To my mind, the most obvious clue that Scabbers is not what he seems is that we learn in PoA that he is missing one finger, and then later we hear that all that was left of Peter was his finger. That should have been a neon sign (yes, I missed it too), but she mentions Scabbers's missing finger so non-chalantly it's easy to skim over. David remarked: > > But the real eye-opener to me is that *Neville* bounced when his > > uncle dropped him from a window; at Hogwarts, he is injured when he > > does his spectacular jump in the flying lesson. I had always seen > > this as a Flint. But... > Pip answered: > You're right, it does rather suggest that Neville is in some way > suppressing his natural magical ability. It could also be indicative of the different heights at which he fell. I believe Uncle Algie was in a second-story window, but Neville was flying higher than that when he fell. Yes? I don't remember. But don't take that to mean RepressingMagic!Neville is not valid. > Next section: 'Why can't Quirrel touch Harry?'. This does not at any > point say that Voldemort is going to be unable to touch Harry. What > we are told about Voldemort is that he doesn't understand love, that > he doesn't understand that Harry will be marked by his mother's > sacrifice, that he doesn't realise that it gives Harry *some* > protection [my emphasis]. > > Dumbledore's last line is > "Quirrel, full of hatred, greed and ambition, sharing his soul with > Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason." > > Note that Quirrel is the subject of that sentence, not Voldemort. We > are left believing that Voldemort cannot touch Harry because of the > way the information about Quirrel, and the information about > Voldemort, is mixed together. And yet... in the rebirthing scene, Voldemort taunts Harry by stroking his face with that long, cold white finger and saying "see, I can touch you now..." --Dicentra, who thinks Pip is right about making NO assumptions about anything, especially when Dumbledore is talking From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun May 26 07:45:35 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 07:45:35 -0000 Subject: A New (?!) Question re Harry and Snape In-Reply-To: <3CEEFAF5.725CF589@erols.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39074 Margaret Dean wrote: > My (bright, articulate) twelve-year-old son came up with this > one, and I found it intriguing, nor do I remember its ever being > discussed before: > > Would Snape like Harry any better if Harry had been Sorted into > Slytherin? (Presumably by choice or at least his own consent.) > > Have at it . . . > > > --Margaret Dean > ::Grey Wolf looks around::Since no Lollipops seem to be around, I'll take a shot at the answer which borrows few of their ideas. _IMO_, if Harry had been sorted into Slytherim (appart from HP books being very *short* books), things would have changed quite a bit between Snape and Harry. It looks like Snape wanted a "protegee" (sp?) and choose Malfoy just because of the animosity between him and Harry. It would then follow that, had Harry been sorted into Slytherin, Snape would have chosen him to groom him. Why? There are two reasons I can see. The first is that Snape is *proud*, maybe too much, and he likes to win: his house, his mastery in potions, etc. Harry would have given his name quite a shine on the long run. The scond reason is where Lollipops comes in. While not part of the main idea, several listees have mentioned Snape as a father figure for Harry, and some (the Lollipops crew) have even suggested that he was in love with Lilly and that he feels responsible for Harry. This, I don't buy, since he hates him too much, but IF Harry had been a Slytherin, it would had all clicked toghether, and Snape's dichotomy would have disappeared, leaving only the protective Snape Malfoy sees and knows. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From pollux46 at hotmail.com Sun May 26 12:56:32 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 12:56:32 -0000 Subject: Cruciatus, thoughts, boggarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39075 "A Goldfeeshwrote: > Two of the three Unforgivables seem to work fairly directly upon the > mind of the victim. So it makes me wonder if perhaps the Avada > Kedavra does too in some way perhaps. It makes me think of an old > Avengers episode in which victims were killed off by their greatest > fears. > > However, this makes me think of a boggart and I can't picture a >boggart and the Killing Curse connected in any way (unless, of >course, >this is foreshadowing of a sort ). This brings a question: What >do boggarts get out of frightening people? Is it a defense method? Do >they feed on fear? Basically why do they try to scare people? Is >Lupin >just picking on a timid creature that wants to be left alone? Ooooh! You might be onto something here. Quote GoF, First Chapter: "The doctors did note (as though determined to find something wrong with the bodies) that each of the Riddles had a look of terror upon his or her face -- but as the frustrated police said, whoever heard of three people being * frightened* to death?" However, no, neither can I see how this could be connected with the Boggarts in any way. Though it might explain why Harry survived Avada Kedavra: he's just too, err, *brave* to be killed off in this way? Charis Julia From elfundeb at aol.com Sun May 26 15:31:37 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 11:31:37 EDT Subject: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR and FOURTH MAN Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39076 On the set of MATCHINGARMCHAIR, Debbie walks slowly back to her small dressing-room trailer after rehearsing her scene, reviewing the script with a frown on her face. Cindy must have written this part; it gives her the last word. Not too late for a revision, Debbie thinks as she sips from her water bottle and picks up her red pencil. Cindy: > > But you've given me a bit of a brain wave. Only a little one, > really. But all this Memory Charm business aside, why isn't Neville > simply operating under the Imperius Curse? Debbie pencils in dramatic quote from GoF on Imperius: "It was the most wonderful feeling. Harry felt a floating sensation as every thought and worry in his head was wiped gently away, leaving nothing but a vague, untraceable happiness. He stood there feeling immensely relaxed, only dimly aware of everyone watching him." "And Harry felt, for the third time in his life, the sensation that his mind had been wiped of all thought." > Don't laugh, I mean it. > I mean, maybe he was placed under the curse as a small child, perhaps by > Mrs. Lestrange. . . . And Neville had > no way to throw it off, of course, lacking magical training and all. > > Or maybe his parents did it. Hmmm. Did Frank place his son under > Imperius to protect some really important secret as the Lestranges > stormed the place? Um, I thought that was what Memory Charms were for. > I mean, Imperius makes you happy and compliant, and Memory Charms seem to > give people the outward appearance of > being happy and compliant if a bit forgetful. Debbie, thinking that "happy" is not the word she would use to describe Neville, inserts another quote from GoF, and some dialogue for herself: "'I definitely haven't [learned enough to enter the TWT]," came Neville's gloomy voice from behind Fred and George. 'I expect my gran'd want me to try, though. She's always going on about how I should be upholding the family honor.'" Does this sound like someone operating under the Imperius Curse? Has "all worry" been wiped from his head? Besides, why would someone use Imperius to turn Neville into a forgetful, "I'm nearly a Squib" kind of kid? Only Evil!Gran or Evil!Uncle Algie would, right? Ahh, but wouldn't a Memory Charm be quite as effective for that purpose? Debbie moves on to Cindy's next bit of dialogue: > > > I see no reason to think that Frank knew where Voldemort was -- > particularly > > > if > > > Voldemort was but a noxious gas at that point. > Eloise: > In CoS, he has sources who tell him that Voldemort is currently hiding in > the > forests of Albania. He doesn't just say he assumes this, because of where > Quirrell had met him, it appears to be *current* knowledge. And it's > nearly > two years later when he mentions Bertha disappearing where Voldemort was > Finished with this little bit, Debbie steps out of her trailer to find Cindy. Everything is quiet, so Debbie wanders down to the shore and looks over the various vessels still moored to the dock. Espying the Fourth Man Hovercraft, shot through with holes, Debbie hears echoes of Cindy's accusations: > The Hovercraft that has been left to drift, > rudderless, as Judy, Debbie and even Eileen's *brother* attempt to > Debbie feels a pang of tremendous guilt; the greatest damage, she fears, was inflicted by her own can(n)ons. But Elkins was so kind to her, even after her attack, unwittingly made while Elkins was off on vacation and could not defend herself. But she now recalls more of Elkins' recent altercation with Cindy: > "Hey, now, come on. I > mean, just hold *on.* You know perfectly well that I couldn't > possibly have gone anywhere near that hovercraft, not back then, not > with all of those canonical villains still out there gunning for me > and Avery. > Feeling better, Debbie goes over to the battered hovercraft, fishes out the kayak stowed aboard for Elkins, and Avery if he wants it. She goes back to the hovercraft and returns with proper kayak paddles and life vests, which she stows in the kayak. Finally, she pulls some extra water bottles from her inside pocket and puts them inside as well. As she turns toward the Parallel Universe Fourth Man hovercraft, however, Debbie sees a new raft heading for shore, with the letters MATCHINGARMCHAIR emblazoned on the side. It's Eileen, with Avery in tow, waving a new defense for Cindy's Memory Potion: > "Be that as it may, there's a very simple reason why Harry reacted > worse than Neville, and it fits perfectly within the logic of the > Reverse Memory Charm or, as we must now call it, the Reverse Memory > Potion theory. Dementors make one relive one's worst moments. Harry, > having completely forgotten his parents' murder, does very badly > against the Dementors. But, what if, as MATCHINGARMCHAIR claims, > Neville is already reliving his parents' torture. If one regularly > hears Cruciatus screams already, wouldn't have one learned to cope > with them to some extent? Once Harry begins to cope more, he can face > the dementors much better. Boggart-dementors have all the emotional > and psychological effects of real dementors (as demonstrated in POA), > yet Harry is able to deal with that Boggart-dementor in GoF quite > handily. Neville does o.k. in the train, because he's an old hand at > the reliving-your-worst-memories game." > Debbie smiles. Debbie has been waiting patiently for days for someone to raise this argument. It's a very clever argument. After all, Debbie thought of it herself (one must always evaluate a theory from all sides, yes?). So she will let Eileen down gently. "This argument doesn't work. Why? It doesn't take the egg into account. Because one cannot simultaneously argue that Neville can't be had by the Dementors because he has a grip on his worst memories *and* at the same time argue that Neville could reasonably think the egg sounded like the Cruciatus curse. If he's in touch with those memories, he *knows* what Cruciatus sounds like. It sounds like his parents screaming in horror. It does not sound like this." Eileen nods silently. Debbie gently points her and Avery toward the Fourth Man Kayak and hands them life vests. Elkins suddenly appears on the beach and joins Eileen and Avery in the kayak. Debbie then pulls out a tow-rope attached to the P.U. Fourth Man hovercraft and attaches the other end to the kayak. Starting up the new hovercraft, Debbie steers slowly into the bay with the kayak behind, scanning the shoreline in case Eloise has been released from massage duties and would like to join her, remembering that they had left some unfinished work to find a new Fourth Man theory for the parallel universe, then recalls that Eloise now believes Fourth Man is Rita Skeeter. She idles the engine, however, upon seeing some parchments floating toward her. Picking them up, she reads, in Athenian goddess-like script: > Maybe the Fourth Man is not > Avery after all. Maybe the Fourth Man is someone that Could Not Be Named > because to do so would compromise another hidden plotline. A Man who we > have conjectured about, but never really had proof of his existence. A Man > who we think was angry enough to curse his wife and subject her to years of > imprisonment. That of course would be the Cuckcolded Mr. Norris! > > [snip] Then after the > attacks on the Longbottoms, Mrs. Norris realized that her husband was one of > the culprits. She agonized over what to do. [snip] > So, Mrs. Norris did what her conscience dictated to her. She turned state's > evidence to the Ministry of Magic and delivered her husband and his > accomplices. Mr. Norris had suspected that she was with Filch, but had > more important fish to fry than to deal with that squib. Then when he knew > he was about to be arrested he decided to seek his revenge on her. As the > Aurors were approaching Mr. Norris, he turned his wand on his wife and > Debbie reaches back into her badge pocket. She has only a few, so this one can't be hard to find. Yes, there it is. F.L.I.R.T.I.A.C., and in tiny lettering underneath, "Filch's Lover Is, Regrettably, Transformed Into A Cat." Debbie pins it to her lapel, then pulls out the navigational maps to chart out a course to the Aegean. Debbie, who was in the garden shop yesterday and resisted buying that pink flamingo for her Gothic cathedral [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sun May 26 15:39:02 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 15:39:02 -0000 Subject: Cruciatus, thoughts, boggarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39077 Amelia Goldfeesh wrote: > Two of the three Unforgivables seem to work fairly directly upon the > mind of the victim. So it makes me wonder if perhaps the Avada > Kedavra does too in some way perhaps. It makes me think of an old > Avengers episode in which victims were killed off by their greatest > fears. AK is possibly my favourite discussion subject, so I think I'm tackling (once again) this one. Even though I do believe that the "unforgivable" denomination has nothing to do with how the curses actually work but with the fact of being unblockable or maybe just a legal definition of sorts (on the lines of "capital offense"), I do believe that they do, in fact, opperate in similar ways. In case of AK, I think that the green beam separates the soul from the body (in Potterverse, the soul is known to exist: look at the ghosts - note that it may have nothing to do with the Christian idea of soul...). When that green beam (charged with inmense magical energy) hits a person, that person inmediatelly knows what's happening to him: he (or she) can feel his consciousness leaving his body, which imprints a horrified expression in his face. Once the soul is removed, that same spell totally anhilates the soul, and certain amount of energy goes back to the wand, where a "shadow" of that soul is stored. That's why no-one turns into a ghost after being AK-ed (no canon to back this last idea up, or to reject it, so it's IMO), and why images of the dead people appear on the graveyard scene (instead of a generic AK shadow). > However, this makes me think of a boggart and I can't picture a > boggart and the Killing Curse connected in any way (unless, of, > course this is foreshadowing of a sort ). This brings a question: > What do boggarts get out of frightening people? Is it a defense > method? Do they feed on fear? Basically why do they try to scare > people? Is Lupin just picking on a timid creature that wants to be > left alone? > > A Goldfeesh I think that boggarts use the transformations as a defence method, just as cats try to look bigger and certain fishes have a real-looking (but extremely big) eye painted in their "tail". Fear is a good weapon, which can save you from being eaten in any number of acasions, but I doubt boggarts actually feed on fear. They're dangerous, probably because they eat people if the opportunity exists, so the wizards are taught how to pretect themselves from them, but thewy're not as bad as dementors (again, IMO, since we don't really know: boggarts aren't listed in FB&wtFt). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From Edblanning at aol.com Sun May 26 16:41:05 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 12:41:05 EDT Subject: Authorial Intent/CARPing (was: FF/SHIP: Authorial Intent, Canonical Plausibilit, Message-ID: <5b.284ec274.2a226a21@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39078 Elkins has writen one of those frustrating posts that are too good to leave without comment, yet are so good that it's difficult to add to what's already been said. Never mind. I'll throw caution to the wind and have a go. Elkins: > A while back, Penny cited a number of past exchanges that have > appeared on this list in regard to the fanfic/fanspec debate. > > Now, one of my constant problems with these conversations is that > they tend to start from the assumption that the author's intent is of > supreme importance to the work itself, that it confers legitimacy on > textual interpretation, that it is, in fact, the final authority on > the work's true "meaning." > > This is problematic for me on a number of different levels, but > Very true! Meaning is in the mind of the beholder. > > My perspective on this has admittedly been quite strongly influenced > by the fact that my academic background was in the field of classical > literature: the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. deadness> > > So while as a classicist, one does indeed often try to reconstruct > the cultural context as a means of determing the way in which the > works might have been "meant" to be read at the time of their > writing, to reconstruct that aspect of authorial intent, it is just > such utter guess-work. <> And unlike many more modern authors, classical > writers didn't leave behind much in the way of correspondence or > memoirs describing their conscious intentions either. The temptation > is therefore to adopt a critical approach which looks to the works > themselves for meaning, while allowing the dust that was their > authors' bones to rest in peace. > > So that's my bias. All the same, I think that it is a valid > approach to living authors as well. Certainly it has been a very > And how much can we trust what modern authors actually say about their intent, anyway? Aside from deliberate misdirection, which might just be the temptation of one author with whom we are all familiar, as Elkins goes on to point out, > See, even if there *were* a "One > True JKR Interpretation," I don't see why on earth any of us should > allow knowing it to influence our reading of her text. Authors are > very rarely the best interpreters of their own works, nor are their > interpretations necessarily any more valid than anyone else's. > Indeed, authors are often *notoriously* oblivious to the true import > of what they themselves have written. > Following Elkins' first exposition of these ideas, back in February, I posted a long-forgotten note commenting from the perspective of my own background, in music. Here, the principle is very clear, as music depends on interpretation. No interpretation, no music. It is dependent both on the interpretation of the performer and that of the listener. As music only *happens* at the interface between creator and performer/listener, so literature only *happens* at the interface between writer and reader. Writing that is unread remains in the domain of the writer's private thoughts. Once writing is published, it is available for interpretation; it is no longer the author's private domain. More than that, it can *only* be experienced by interpretation. However much we may wish to get inside the writer's mind, we cannot. However objective we may wish, or try to be, our own responses will always be governed to some extent at least, by our previous experiences, knowledge, temperament, culture. Objective interpretation is an unachievable goal. > <>So while the author can shed light on her original intent, and while > this is indeed often very interesting, it does not, IMO, bear any > relationship to the actual merit or value of any given reading of a > literary work. > <>As far as I'm concerned, as soon as a written work is distributed, > then the question of how it is to be read is out of the author's > hands. Authors may indeed own the right to their works in the legal > sense, but they do not own the rights to the reader's > *interpretation* of their works, and they certainly have no power to > dictate the reader's emotional response to what they have written. > And as I have suggested, an inescapable fact. > <> > This is the reason that while I do find interviews with JKR > interesting, and I do find them compelling evidence as support for > various future speculations, I do not really consider them "canon." > They are not canon. Canon is the text itself. Literary interviews > and literary memoirs are often fascinating -- but they are not the > One of the things that I think may be at the root of some of the anxiety about JKR's authorial intentions is the *unpublished* canon, so to speak. Perhaps one of the reasons for concern over whether interpretations are canonical or not is that JKR has made it very public that there are 'right' answers to many of the questions we ask, 'right' answers that are sitting in her little notebooks, perhaps 'right' answers that will never be revealed. Now, as long as these remain unpublished, remain in her private domain, they are not, by Elkins' definition (I think), 'canon' . The problem that I see is that we are dealing with an author who conveys a strong sense of authorial intent, of wishing to control her creation, whilst intentionally withholding parts of it. The suggestion is thus that the unpublished information *is* canon, which to JKR, it presumably is, as it's all part of her carefully thought-out scheme. One of the fascinating things about the Potterverse is this feeling that we are glimpsing part of another world, a world that seems to be (apparently claims to be) internally consistent (aren't many of our threads concerned with trying to work out these consistencies, smooth out the apparent contradictions?), a world, in other words that has some kind of real, objective truth about it. (I have been reliably informed by my husband, as I was earnestly answering a child's query about the Potterverse, that this is not the case!) This feeling that we are talking about a world with an objective reality sits ill at ease alongside our intellectual realisation that it is in fact a fictional world, one which we are free to interpret according to our own lights. I feel this may account for some of the contradictions in the way we choose to interpret it. ................... It has also crossed my mind that Elkins' analysis provides an insight into a little of what is going on in Theory Bay, where CARPing participants very clearly lay themselves open to having at least elements of their posts interpreted in a way that may not have been their original intention. Unlike the author who tries to control his/her creation, CARPers consciously throw out scenarios and ideas which other TBAYers are free to pick up and reinterpret, frequently in an overtly subversive manner, by some kind of unstated, mutual consent. So, for instance, Cindy has her Big Paddle and in one scenario, I turn it into the weapon which decapitates Stoned!Harry and in another, Elkins smashes it in exasperation. I'm quite sure that Cindy had neither of these outcomes in mind when she first acquired it. ;-) Although verbal interaction on Theory Bay frequently makes use of participants' own quoted words, (being true to canon, as it were) again, we allow others to put words into our mouths. Or snores. Now come on, who was it? Confess! Who was it made out that I snore? Elkins? Was it *you*? Because I don't. Not that I've been told. Now, Abelard *does* suffer from a bit of nasal obstruction.... Sorry, wrong kind of post. Forgot myself there, for a minute . Eileen wrote: >Furthermore, the decorative prose is often quite self-referential, >adding a further layer of meaning to the posts. Elkins' latest attack >on Cindy is a clever spin on her T.S. Eliot-Neville post. As an >English student, I enjoy this sort of cleverness, the moments when >one goes - "Oh, that's what the author's up to!" The worm who hopes >not to turn, but is forced to, a concept Elkins was discussing, is >here made concrete. This is not fanfic, but a form of fictionalized >literary analysis, that, I have noticed, many academics love to >write. Now, I have to confess that I naively thought that Elkins had simply been goaded to the point where smashing Cindy's paddle seemed irresistible. But then, I'm a bit simple like that. After all, in my current field of study, the people I'm most interested in are so dead they didn't even *have* literature. (Although they did have some pretty cool art forms that Stoned!Harry might find familiar! ;-) ) Was this consciously a fiendishly clever piece of self-referential writing on Elkins' part, or did she unconsciously mirror in her CARPing her interpretation of/identification with Neville? (Was she being herself 'notoriously oblivious to the true import' of what she wrote?) I think the answer to this might give us a little insight into authorial intent. :-) But what Elkins' and Eileen's points bring home to me is that we are, quite openly, inviting other people to interpret us in a way that could be called subversive, which. I would suggest, is quite consistent with the subversive nature of some (not all) of our TBAY theories. Eloise For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypotheticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From spicecow at hotmail.com Sun May 26 14:31:07 2002 From: spicecow at hotmail.com (pants_meister) Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 14:31:07 -0000 Subject: Coherence II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39079 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > You could argue that wandless wizard children can do magic that > Hogwarts manages to suppress or take away (Parallels to RL education > to OT!). (If true that weakens the PS Parseltongue clue as a clue > for CS, of course.) The ultimate example of this is then of course > baby Harry's defeat of Voldemort. Now what themes and messages does > *that* bring out? This is an interesting idea. There's a theory that before they learn to talk, babies have a high intelligence and knowledge about life that they lose as soon as they can talk. Maybe this theory could work with magical children. When they are babies their power is at its greatest, hence Harry could defeat Voldemort (and Neville could bounce when dropped), but this power is weakened as they grow older. They then have to relearn what they are capable of when they get to school, and are considered to be at an age where they would understand their abilities and use their power more responsibly. "pants_meister" From Ali at zymurgy.org Sun May 26 19:59:57 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 19:59:57 -0000 Subject: Coherence II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39080 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "davewitley" wrote: > What I remain to be convinced of is that there are *clues* which make no sense in terms of the book they are in, but do make sense in a later book. > find something in an early book which is a puzzle that is resolved in a later one. I repeat, I am *not* talking about mere foreshadowings, I am talking about mysteries, and I am *not* talking about mysteries that have been clearly presented as such. I mean clues that with some thought and luck might have given the reader help in cracking the puzzle in the later book. > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -- I am unsure about the difference between a mystery and a gap waiting to be filled. Perhaps a mystery is a jigsaw with most of the pieces there, but waiting to be fitted together, and a gap, is well a gap ie a jigsaw with a piece missing. > In any event, I find the following *mysteries* which I certainly hope will we answered as the series progresses: 1) Why the Dursleys took Harry in and continued to look after him, despite their *obvious* hatred of him. I find it incompatible that the couple who seek 100% conventionality can nevertheless send their nephew to school looking so odd. Their need to humiliate and opppress Harry seems to conquer their need for normality. Perhaps we will discover that they do not hate Harry and their treatment of him amounts to a necessary part of Harry's protection. However, their *charade* still appears utterly convincing in GoF - so I still want to know why they took him in. However many brownie points they might gain from taking in their strange nephew, they would surely lose from their outward treatment of him - ie the way they force him to dress, be bullied by Dudley etc, ignoring his cupboard bedroom and drudge-like status at home which would not be visible to outsiders. 2) The fact that wizards lifespans are twice the length of their Muggles counterparts. Admittedly we know this from JKR's interviews rather than the books themselves, but we are given pointers that all is not "normal". Dumbledore was fighting and winning battles in 1945. By 1994 he is described as "ancient" (I think, I haven't got the books at hand). Again, a 70 year old might appear ancient to a 14 year old, but we have privileged information.(70 would seem to be about the minimum Dumbledore could be as a teacher in 1945, and Hagrid would have to be c.63 in GoF). What we do not know is, if this important, why is it? To me, it is therefore a mystery. There is alot of narrative detail that may or may not become important in later books. It is possible that whilst these may not seem mysterious at the time, that they will provide the key to solving later mysteries. For example, I still wonder if Snape's opening speech carries any significance - other than establishing his hatred of Harry. Perhaps the bezoar (again mentioned in GoF when Harry forgets to add it in his antidote test) or the Sleeping Potion of Living Death, may yet resurface. The point is, we do not know, and the fact that we can start analysing seemingly insignificant facts in the hope of finding meaning in the future, surely means that JKR has shown us enough coherence for us to be able to anticipate more (Or, we are flogging a dead horse because we've waited too long for Oop!). Ali > From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Sun May 26 23:02:03 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (Lee Farley) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 00:02:03 +0100 Subject: Cruciatus, thoughts, boggarts In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c20509$59f68d50$73e46bd5@quack> No: HPFGUIDX 39081 Ahh, a small conversation on Avada Kedavra and Boggarts, looks like I joined the list at the right time... Well, time for me to throw my ideas on the pile I suppose :) Grey Wolf wrote: >I do believe that the >"unforgivable" denomination has nothing to do with how the curses >actually work but with the fact of being unblockable or maybe just a >legal definition of sorts (on the lines of "capital offense") That would make a lot of sense, because there are a lot of other charms, curses and potions (such as Memory Charms and Veritaserum) that can be seen to work on the mind in much the same way. I would say its more of a legal term, backed up in Chapter 14 of GoF where Moody/Crouch is first teaching the kids about the three unforgivable curses. He says something like: *** "I'm not supposed to show you what illegal Dark curses look like until you're in the sixth year." Which suggests to me that he's showing the curses because they're illegal, not because of how they work. Again, from Grey Wolf: >In >case of AK, >I think that the green beam separates the soul from the body When >that green beam (charged with inmense magical energy) hits a person, >that person inmediatelly knows what's happening to him: he (or >she) can feel his consciousness leaving his body, which imprints a horrified >expression in his face. Interesting theory, but it sounds too long and drawn out to work with what we know about Avada Kedavra. Again from Chapter 14 of GoF, where Moody uses Avada Kedavra on the spider: ***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. That sentence there suggests that the sight and sound of the curse itself is enough to put a terrified look onto the victims face. After seeing that demenstration, Harry wonders if his parents had seen the green flash and "heard the rush of speeding death". They might not have known what was happening to them, but they definitely knew it wasn't going to be something good. And before all that, A Goldfeesh wrote: > However, this makes me think of a boggart and I can't picture a > boggart and the Killing Curse connected in any way (unless, of, course > this is foreshadowing of a sort ). This brings a > question: What do > boggarts get out of frightening people? Is it a defense method? Do > they feed on fear? Basically why do they try to scare >people? Is Lupin > just picking on a timid creature that wants to be left alone? Hmm... I wouldn't say that boggarts are exactly timid, but they're certainly not portrayed as being vicious creatures like Dragons are. I think that their powers serve as both a defence mechanism and an extremely potent weapon. If you were to come across a small boggart, you wouldn't think twice about chasing it down (presuming you actually wanted to). But if you imagine that when it sees you, it turns into an enormous Acromantula - you'd definitely think twice about it, and probably run as far away as you can. When the boggart is transformed, it also seems to be able to use all of the powers that the form its taking has. This is backed up by evidence from PoA (I forget the chapter): *** "Well," said Lupin, frowning slightly, "I assumed that if the boggart faced you, it would assume the shape of Lord Voldemort." A full-powered Voldemort would be a very bad thing indeed... Add to that the fact that the dementor/boggart that Harry does encounter seems toh ave the same fear inducing powers, then its possible that the boggart could use its powers as a weapon to hunt its prey. Of course, if the Boggart really does have all the powers of its present form, why doesn't Lupin change into a Werewolf? Does the potion he take every month prevent him from changing? Also, I think that feeding on fears is solely the Dementors role in the books. Having two creatures that essentially do the same thing would seem a little out-of-character for the series. I imagine the Boggarts as being fairly inert, just going about their own business and doing their own thing. Well that's my thoughts. And hello everyone! I'm LD, I'm 19, I'm new, and I'm very happy to have finally found a place that loves Harry Potter and isn't populated exclusively by 10 yr olds ;) -LD From elfundeb at aol.com Mon May 27 04:14:45 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 00:14:45 EDT Subject: Cruciatus and insanity Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39082 Marina suggested, regarding how Cruciatus could cause insanity: > Cruciatus causes great pain without producing any injury that would > explain it -- no bruises or burns or broken bones or anything. So I'm > guessing the spell affects the brain and the nervous system directly. > If that's true, then prolonged exposure might cause actual physical > brain damage. To someone unfamiliar with modern medicine (like > wizards, for example) the outward systems would look like madness. > I had given some thought awhile back to the question of how various curses -- not just the unforgiveable ones -- act on their victims some time ago and the best explanations I could come up with all involved direct action on the brain. With respect to Cruciatus, I came to the conclusion that Cruciatus must affect the part of the brain that controls pain (and perhaps the nerve endings as well). After the curse is stopped the victim takes some time to recover in order to let go of the residual feeling of pain. So the spider continued to twitch, as did Harry. If the pain is intense enough I can see the victim blocking out the memory of the curse, or have short-term memory lapse, or have post-traumatic stress reactions, but not general memory loss. If Cruciatus affects the pain sensing part of the brain, it should not in and of itself cause other parts of the brain, such as the part controlling memory, to become damaged. I'm also thinking here that curses generally have to be clearly targeted otherwise the effect could be catastrophic. This is what in my mind distinguishes Cruciatus (which I don't see as likely to cause one's memory to snap) and breaking a memory charm, which caused Bertha's mind to be broken. By acting on the part of the brain that controls memory, her torture might have affected that part of the brain. The Longbottoms' symptoms seem to go way beyond the damage likely to be caused to the pain-sensing portion of the brain, that in that they no longer have the capacity to recognize their son no matter how many times Neville comes to visit them, which is what led me to the conclusion that Cruciatus might not have caused their insanity at all (and to cook up all those Memory Charm'd Frank scenarios). Although I don't find the explanation that the Longbottoms were driven insane by Cruciatus very realistic, I've seen it in literature and film enough to recognize that it's not necessarily true that the story is intended as a combination of clues and misdirection. ameliagoldfeesh then asked: > Two of the three Unforgivables seem to work fairly directly upon the > mind of the victim. So it makes me wonder if perhaps the Avada > Kedavra does too in some way perhaps. Avada Kedavra also seems to work directly on the brain. My explanation (which is perhaps too scientific for the Potterverse) is that AK causes all brain activity to cease, including activity that controls automatic functions like the beating of the heart, with the result that the person dies instantly. Grey Wolf suggested the following, which I like for its emphasis on the soul as the essence of the person (though I'm going to nitpick at it anyway): > In case of AK, > I think that the green beam separates the soul from the body (in > Potterverse, the soul is known to exist: look at the ghosts - note that > it may have nothing to do with the Christian idea of soul...). When > that green beam (charged with inmense magical energy) hits a person, > that person inmediatelly knows what's happening to him: he (or she) can > feel his consciousness leaving his body, which imprints a horrified > Well, I think the victims (in particular the Riddles) died with horrified expressions on their faces because they were terrified by Tom's appearance and in their last moment saw that green flash coming at them. Not only that, he probably berated them at length before doing them in, as he did with Harry, so they had no doubt he intended to kill them. Once the soul is removed, that same spell totally anhilates the soul, and certain > amount of energy goes back to > I like the idea of the shadow, though I don't think it is inconsistent with the continued existence of the soul. If you think about it, this is very much like what Riddle accomplished by preserving a memory in his diary. However, Riddle himself continued in existence (presumably with his soul, because he had precious else left after Godric's Hollow). Likewise, I think that what was preserved in Voldemort's wand was the memory of its victims' deaths. But like Riddle in the diary, the memories have form and a ghostlike substance and are able to act like themselves, as ghosts are. > That's why no-one turns into a ghost after being AK-ed (no canon to back > this last idea > up, or to reject it, so it's IMO), and why images of the dead people > I thought I read in an interview somewhere that JKR suggested that Cedric will reappear as a ghost (sorry, can't do searches right now to find it). If so, as he's already been seen as a presence in Voldemort's wand, I don't think the shadow and the ghost are necessarily mutually exclusive. Other examples of curses and charms that seem to work directly on the brain (besides Imperius, which, I think, activates the part of the brain that controls emotion and produces a "happy" contented feeling that deprives the person of the desire to think so they just do what they're told because it feels good) include the Cheering Charm, the Tickling Charm, the Jelly-Legs Curse, and of course the Memory Charm. In fact, if you think about it, all magic seems to involve mind games. When it's something like a Summoning Charm, Alohamora, or Mobili (arbus, corpus, or something else), the wizard exercises mind control to manipulate inanimate objects. On the other hand, with the Patronus Charm, the wizard uses his own thoughts and feelings and embodies the thought in a form (the Patronus) that will repel the dementor. With the unforgivables and other charms and curses that act on other people, the wizard exercises mind control over another person's mind. Now I wonder if Transfiguration works by simply putting something in the transfigured object that makes the mind and the senses (of both the target, if the target is a sentient creature, and anyone else who can see, hear, or touch the characteristics of the transfigured object) rather than those of the real object. If so, Transfiguration would seem to be extraordinarily difficult. This mind-game theory doesn't explain everything, of course. I can't imagine how the combination of Jelly-Legs and Furnunculus curse, used on Crabbe at the end of GoF, could have produced tentacles on his face. Debbie [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From skelkins at attbi.com Mon May 27 05:39:18 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 05:39:18 -0000 Subject: Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. Yet Sympathetic. And Dead, Too. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39083 I promised to weigh in on Redeemable!Draco, didn't I? Yeah. I did. So okay, then. Here it is. ----- James wrote: > After recieving the last (and my first) digest, I was quite > surprised about the desire of the members for Draco to change. Why > should he, do we need him to? I think a lot of this might be to do > with the Draco Dormiens, Draco Sinester and the latst in the series > of those fanfics (I may be wrong). Welcome, James! I don't think that Cassandra Claire's fics have very much to do with it at all, really. Rather, I sort of suspect that Claire (like so many other fanfic writers) made the authorial decision to change him in the first place for precisely the same reason that so many readers feel such a strong desire to see him change in canon: namely, that as he is currently written, Draco Malfoy is a *profoundly* unsatisfying character. I further believe that the very things which make him so unsatisfying a character also serve as by far the most compelling argument for the belief that JKR herself may indeed have plans to force his character to undergo some form of change in future volumes. There are two reasons that Draco doesn't really work very well for me as a character in his current state. One of them is more emotional and meta-textual, while the other is more purely literary. Hana touched on the literary problem here, when she wrote: > The other thing to consider when talking about character change > will be the final outcome of the book. . . . Could Redeemable!Draco > help further the plot? Possibly, though not likely until near the > end of the last book. I think Draco serves well as RivalPeer!Draco > and it seems to be a likely place to keep him for quite some time > regardless of what people would personally like to see. I agree that this question is very well served by approaching it in terms of Draco's narrative function. Where Hana and I disagree, however, is on the issue of whether Draco really serves very well as RivalPeer!Draco at all. I don't think that he does, and I have a suspicion that dissatisfaction with this aspect of the text is probably one of the major factors leading to the popularity of Redeemed!Draco in both speculation and in fanfic. As the story currently stands, Draco is indeed presented very much as Harry's rival, his peer antagonist. That is his ostensible narrative function within the text. And yet, he strikes me as far too *weak* a character to really fulfill this role in at all a satisfying manner. It therefore becomes difficult to avoid the nagging suspicion that perhaps Draco is *not,* in fact, really meant to serve as Harry's peer antagonist throughout the entire series at all, that perhaps JKR may indeed have some slightly different role planned for him by series' end. I have been very surprised, in past Draco discussions on this list, to see that so many people seem to ascribe to him such a lot of power. In a discussion of the so-called "train stomp" (the scene on the train at the end of _GoF_), for example, someone (UncMark, I believe?) expressed the belief that the Gryffindors' use of force there seemed justified because within the context of that scene, Draco's words could be read as a "death threat." Similarly, I have seen people argue for Draco's gloat at the QWC as a veiled rape threat against Hermione, his wishing Hermione dead in _CoS_ as proof that he is surely capable of becoming a killer, and his attempt to sabotage Harry's Quiddich match by dressing up as a dementor in _PoA_ as "attempted murder." These interpretations always amaze me, frankly, not so much because they ascribe such pure malice to Draco (although I myself don't read him that way, I am certainly capable of entertaining that reading without undue difficulty), but rather because they all seem to ascribe to the little putz such a high degree of competence, of *power.* And that's really *not* a reading that I can bring myself to entertain, not even for a minute. I simply cannot bring myself to perceive Draco as the least bit competent or powerful. It's just plain impossible for me to read him that way because, as I see it, Draco is absolutely the opposite of powerful. He is *weak.* He's pathetic. A total loser. Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. As Harry's rival, he starts out with a number of advantages that are clearly meant to reflect Harry's own situation. Harry is an orphan who has been raised in utter ignorance of his own culture; his personal strengths are courage, grit, resourcefulness, resiliency, and plain old-fashioned virtue. Draco is therefore, and quite properly, established right from the start as having the corresponding and contrasting advantages. He's a mass of social privilege, his family is wealthy and powerful, he is highly knowledgable about the wizarding world. He is also shown to be dishonest, cowardly, cunning, snobbish, and a bully. Well, okay. So far so good. But then the whole dynamic just falls completely to pieces for me. For one thing, Harry ends up trumping nearly all of Draco's advantages right from the very start. By the end of PS/SS, there's just nothing left to Draco's advantages. He's lost each and every one of them. Whatever status Draco can claim as a Malfoy is *nothing* in comparison to Harry's own fame within the wizarding world, and as we see in the very first book, Draco's family connections and influence just can't compete with the kind of patronage that Harry receives by simple virtue of being who he is. In spite of what he is obviously hoping at the beginning of PS/SS, Draco does *not* in fact manage to get the prohibition against First Years keeping their own brooms at Hogwarts waived for him. But Harry does -- and furthermore, he even has somebody *buy* him that broom even though as it turns out, he isn't really a poor orphan boy at all. He's a *rich* orphan boy. A *very* rich orphan boy. He doesn't even have the disadvantage of poverty to contend with. At Hogwarts, Harry gets Dumbledore as his mentor, with McGonagall and Hagrid both stepping in to help play that role as well. Draco gets...well, he gets Snape. Snape, who is actually spending a huge amount of his time and energy protecting *Harry.* Draco's entire childhood spent immersed in the culture of the wizarding world doesn't help him all that much either. He does seem to be a reasonably competent student, but if he ever surpassed Harry when it came to practicing magic at all (and I think it clear that by this point in the story-line, he no longer does), then he never had a strong enough advantage to make very much of a difference. And of course, Harry's ally Hermione has always had him beat on that count anyway. Nor were all of those years that Draco spent practicing his flying skills sufficient to counter Harry's own innate and savant-like talent. Harry himself acknowledges that Draco is very good with a broom. But Harry's better. And on and on it goes, throughout four entire volumes. Draco just can't do anything right. He is profoundly ineffectual, and not a one of his purported advantages actually helps him at all. The Malfoy wealth doesn't help Draco. Harry regularly trumps him in the ever-escalating broom war, and even when Draco has a temporary advantage in having the better broom in _CoS,_ he still loses. The Malfoy influence doesn't help Draco. Lucius does manage to get Dumbledore ousted from power for a very short period of time, true, but he only winds up being himself then ousted from the school's board of governors. Just about the only thing that the Malfoy influence has ever accomplished for Draco was to get Hagrid's pet hippogriff slated for execution. Draco can't even manage to get rid of Hagrid *himself.* Not even through helping to out him as a half-giant can he manage to get rid of the man. All he can succeed in doing is nailing one of Hagrid's *animals.* And even then, Buckbeak escapes. The Malfoy political savvy *might* have helped Draco, but in fact it doesn't, because Draco seems determined to ignore every single piece of political advice that his father ever gives him. He has been advised to mask his dislike for Harry Potter -- and so, naturally, he blabs his hatred of Harry to the entire school. He is advised to "keep his head down" while Slytherin's basilisk is on the loose -- and so, naturally, he makes an utter spectacle of himself in front of the entire school by gloating over the monster's predations, thus leaving himself open to suspicions of being Salazar's heir himself. And does anyone really think that Lucius Malfoy would be pleased, if he ever heard about Draco refusing to stand for Harry at the end of _GoF,_ or worse, insulting Cedric Diggory's memory on the train? Somehow I rather suspect that these actions, too, were probably undertaken in blatant disregard of parental admonition. For all of his "my fathering," Draco really isn't even a very *loyal* son. Strategically and politically speaking, he is a moron. >From his sorting into Slytherin, we are presumably meant to assume that Draco is supposed to at least be *cunning.* But he isn't very. His "midnight duel" scheme at the beginning of the first book was indeed a nice little bit of Slytherinesque planning, but from there on out, it's just been all downhill for poor old Draco. None of his subsequent plans to get Harry in trouble have worked out very well at all. When he tries to spy on the Trio, he gets caught. When he tries to turn the student body against Harry, his successes are very short-lived. And that "dressing up like Dementors" scheme was just plain lame (how on earth did the Slytherins *ever* imagine that they'd get away with that without getting themselves in loads of trouble and losing their House points?) Even when he is actually in the *right,* as in _PoA_ where (whatever one thinks of squealing as a general practice) Harry really *was* in Hogsmeade without either proper permission or any really compelling excuse for having broken the rules to be there, Draco's ratting him out still does him no good: Harry is rescued by Lupin. The only times that Draco manages to be even the slightest bit successful against Harry are those times when he has a far more experienced adult ally helping him. He does indeed manage to cause a bit of mischief in Book Four -- but only with the aid of Rita Skeeter. He does manage to discomfit Harry in the Duelling Club scene in Book Two -- but only because Snape is there helping him out. (And again, Harry's adult allies are far more powerful, in the long run, than Draco's.) Left to his own devices, Draco really can't seem to do much of anything, really, other than pick on poor Neville Longbottom in the corridors. Draco has no real strengths and no real advantages. He doesn't even seem very happy with the strengths that he's *supposed* to be playing to: his response to the accusation in _CoS_ that he has bought his way onto the Quiddich team -- surely a perfectly appropriate Slytherinesque thing to do -- is not one of smug satisfaction, but instead of shamed fury. I don't even really believe that he's at all popular, although I know that many people have come to the opposite conclusion. Marcus Flint does indeed go out of his way to protect him, as do Crabbe and Goyle on a regular basis. Pansy certainly seems to care for him. But is he really all that much of a House leader? I don't think that he is. His own year woud seem to lack any male students of strong enough character to contest his role there, but the House as a whole certainly doesn't follow his lead. They're happy enough to snigger at his jokes, but when push comes to shove, as at the end of _GoF,_ we can see just precisely to what extent the rest of House Slytherin is willing to close ranks behind slippery old Lucius' idiot son. They're, well, not. Not at all. Not in the least. They're on their feet for Harry at Dumbledore's closing banquet. The only people willing to follow Draco's lead in remaining seated would seem to be...Crabbe and Goyle. It's just plain sad, is what it is. Draco just doesn't have very much in the way of strengths, while his weaknesses are legion. He is a coward, both in terms of his visceral response to immediate peril (the Unicorn-blood-swilling Quirrell in Book One, Buckbeak in Book Three) and in terms of his lack of longer-term resilience. He does not bounce back well from traumatic events: after being ferret- bounced by Fake Moody, even the mere mention of the man's *name* is enough to make him blanch. He can't control his emotions very well. He loses his temper; he speaks when it is unwise for him to do so; he can dish out verbal abuse, but he can't take it. Furthermore, on the two occasions when we have seen his behavior when he's not putting on a front for Harry and his friends -- the Knockturn Alley scene and the Polyjuice scene, both in _CoS_ -- he is sulky, petulant and whiny. His tone in those two scenes isn't really reminiscent of Snape at all, regardless of the way that the text is always encouraging us to draw a generational parallel between the two characters. Really, if Draco sounds like anyone at all in those two scenes, then I'd have to say that person would be Peter Pettigrew, whose sulky and petulant tone when he speaks to Voldemort in _GoF_ actually strikes me as remarkably similar to the way that Draco speaks whenever he doesn't know that Harry is observing him. Just about the only striking personal strength that I do see in Draco, in fact, is a certain degree of wit. His jibes are usually pretty unamusing, true, but then sometimes he is capable of a really nicely dry sense of humor. His running commentary on Hagrid's abysmal Care of Magical Creatures class always makes me smile, and I thought that his choice of the Densaugeo curse in his impromptu duel with Harry was really very clever. But even his humor -- when it succeeds in being funny at all -- is still the sort of humor that derives from weakness, rather than from strength. His constant carping in Hagrid's class is ghetto humor, really: it's the wit of somebody who knows perfectly well that he is powerless to change his situation. Hermione, similarly trapped in a class that she absolutely detests in _PoA,_ has the opportunity to walk away. Draco doesn't have that option, so he gripes instead. And while the Densaugeo curse was indeed a very clever bit of word play, in the end it only serves to draw attention to Draco's weakness: his envy and resentment over Harry's position as Triwizard Contestant. Even Draco at his best is still *weak* Draco. As a reader, therefore, my reaction to Draco in his narrative role as Harry's peer rival is primarily one of intense *frustration.* It just doesn't seem right to me. It doesn't work. It's not a fair enough contest. Draco strikes me as so hopelessly outclassed on every conceivable level that I simply can't take him at all seriously as Harry's peer antagonist. Harry already has him licked on all fronts, as far as I'm concerned, so if that's really all that Draco is there to do, then what on earth is the *point* of him? This is my primary reason for finding the notion that ultimately, Draco might have some *other* narrative function to fill to be not only highly convincing but indeed very compelling. I think it clear that Draco *must* change. Either his narrative function itself must change, or something about his power level or his competence will have to change. Because as things now stand, I just don't see how JKR can possibly make PeerRival!Draco work for another three whole novels. But if Draco is in fact *not* really supposed to serve the function of Harry's peer rival forever, if JKR actually does have some other plans for him, then what could that plan be? Well, there are a number of possibilities. One might be that in the end, Draco will actually serve less as Harry's rival than as a cautionary tale about the spiritually degrading effects of envy. I can easily see him becoming quite a pathetic figure of evil by the end, lost in a wash of hopeless resentment, causing trouble through small and petty acts of betrayal, sneakiness, and recourse to bigger and more powerful people than himself: Snape meets Pettigrew. The "how bad is Voldemort? *Ever* so bad!" scenario which James suggested is also a possibility, I suppose, as is the filicidal version -- Draco dead at Lucius' hands. We did get all of that parricide in Book Four, which does sort of make you wonder when filicide might rear its ugly head as a running motif. And then there's Redeemable!Draco. Ah. Good old Redeemable!Draco... Cindy wrote: > If someone wants to make the case for Redeemable!Draco, I'll always > listen, of course. But I can't make any promises that I'll sign on > for a tour of duty. ;-) Well, okay. I'll give this a shot, if you like, although I doubt that I'll succeed in convincing you. ;-) I'm not going to list all of the places in canon that can be read as evidence of Draco's ambiguity here, because, um, I think that Heidi's probably already hit them all -- and if she didn't actually hit each and every one of them this time around, then she surely did the last time around, or the time before that. At this point, I imagine that she's probably got a little list saved somewhere. I can't possibly compete with Heidi when it comes to Draco apologetics; I'm not even going to try. Nor am I going to list the extra-canonical factors that I think contribute to Redeemable!Draco's canonical plausibility here because I already went through all of those (as well as the similar arguments of the opposition) in message #34802. Instead, I'd like to argue the case on slightly different grounds in this post. To my mind, by far the most compelling arguments for Redeemable!Draco are as follows: 1) Draco is far too weak a character to serve very well in his ostensible role as Harry's peer antagonist. It is therefore tempting to consider the possibility that his ultimate narrative function must be something else. A redemption scenario is the most logical, obvious and instinctive idea of what that something else might be. This one I just covered above. 2) Draco reaps a good deal of reader sympathy due to both the "Sympathy For the Devil" and the "Hurt-Comfort" phenomena, both of which JKR has shown herself more than capable of combatting when it comes to other characters in her books. She does not seem to be even *trying* to combat them when it comes to Draco. This suggests that she may well have reasons of her own -- such as planning a more sympathetic role for him in the future -- for wanting the reader to retain the ability to view this character with a sympathetic eye. I do feel that Draco has been written in such a way as to encourage a good amount of reader sympathy, something that cannot be said for any of the series' other villain characters. Voldemort is not written as a sympathetic character in the least. Pettigrew is even less so. Crouch Jr. isn't either, and neither is Quirrell, and neither is Lockhart. Sure, SYCOPHANTS like me often do find these guys intensely sympathetic, but the general readership absolutely does not. The general readership *does,* however, tend to sympathize with Draco -- it's an incredibly popular and wide-spread reading -- and I can't help but feel that if JKR honestly didn't want for so many people to read him that way, then she made some *very* serious errors of judgement in how she chose to portray him in canon. For one thing, she never lets Draco win. Never. Not ever. what few successes he has are both short-lived and do no permanent harm, while his failures are often overwhelming. He can't whip Harry in Quiddich, and he can't win the House Cup for Slytherin; he can't get his least-favorite teacher fired, and he has this unfortunate tendency to wind up at the end of the novels in some state of embarrassingly abject defeat. And that is sympathetic. It's sympathetic because for the most part, people prefer to root for underdogs and losers, especially ones who have pluck and always get back on their feet again no matter how many times they're knocked down. We *like* the existentialist Sisyphean hero, doomed to failure and yet still gamely struggling on against all odds. Of course, Draco Malfoy is not designated "Underdog" by the text itself. The text itself defines him as a mass of privilege. But the *meta-text* -- the unspoken body of genre convention and literary trope that readers cannot help but hold in mind while they read a work of fiction -- designates him quite clearly as the Underdog of the piece. As readers, we know perfectly well that Draco cannot win. Even little kids get this about the way that the books are structured: it is fundamental to the genre that Draco's never going to get to win. He is the designated loser of the books. He's always going to be thwarted; the deck is hopelessly stacked against him; the very authorial *voice* has it in for him. And yet, even though he's utterly trounced at the end of each book, there he is at the start of the next one, still plugging away at trying to make life difficult for Harry, even though he's not really very good at it and never manages to get away with it, in the end. And you know, it's really hard not to sympathize with that. This phenomenon, which sometimes goes by the name "Sympathy For the Devil," can be fought. There are specific things that authors can do to keep their readers from sympathizing with the villains on the grounds of meta-textual rooting for the underdog. JKR knows what they are, too: she uses them all the time when she writes about Voldemort. Voldemort is also doomed to failure, but that fact doesn't suffice to reap him very much in the way of reader sympathy for a number of reasons. For one thing, he's truly monstrous. For another, he doesn't show us very much in the way of real emotional vulnerability. And finally, his temporary victories are permitted to have long-term consequences: even when he loses in the end, he succeeds in doing real, lasting and permanent damage to those who get in his way, or whom he uses in the pursuit of his goals. None of that applies to Draco. Draco *is* portrayed as emotionally vulnerable, and in the end, none of his nastiness ever really amounts to very much more than an irritant for our heroes. Any damage that he does is always undone by the end of each volume. No particular effort is being made to counteract Sympathy For the Devil when it comes to Draco, which does sort of make you wonder whether part of the reason for this might not be that the author herself really doesn't *want* for him to forfeit all of that nice reader sympathy that he gets by virtue of being marked as the designated loser. Indeed, perhaps she wants for him to retain that sympathy. And if she does, then it's tempting to think that the reason she must want it that way is because she plans on eventually giving him some type of sympathetic sub-plot. Another way in which the authorial voice often seems to be encouraging readers to view Draco in a sympathetic light lies in the disparity between what the narrative simply *tells* us, and what it actually *shows* us happening right in front of our proverbial eyes. In fiction, what the reader actually sees almost always carries more weight than what the reader is merely told, and the more immediate and sensory this information, the more convincing it is. For example, things about character that are conveyed through that character's own dialogue tend to be more convincing than information that is conveyed by means of a narrative backstory. If the two come into conflict, then the reader will usually choose to "trust" the dialogue. In the Harry Potter books, the more immediate and sensory information about both Draco and House Slytherin often seems designed to undercut the more overtly stated narrative message. In the first book, for example, JKR tells us that the Slytherins have won the House Cup for years and years running. The Gryffindors, we are informed, are therefore the Underdogs. Really, they are. But what we actually see *happening* over the course of the books is Gryffindor taking the cup again and again and again, and Harry always winning every Quiddich match in which he is pitted directly against Draco, and all of the other houses uniting behind Gryffindor, and Dumbledore's infamous "dissing the Slyths" scene at the end of PS/SS. This is the reason, I think, for the prevailing notion that there is a strong bias against House Slytherin. The narrative voice tells us that this is absolutely not in fact the case. But everything that we actually see happening before our very eyes conveys a slightly different message. Similarly, what JKR tells us at the end of _GoF_ is that Draco, Crabbe and Goyle look to Harry "more arrogant and menacing" than ever before. But what does she show us? What do we actually see? What we actually see is a smirk that quivers. We also see a somewhat fumbled and even (to my mind) faintly hysterical-souding insult, followed promptly by the most summary and effortless dispatch imaginable. The Slytherins don't even seem to have thought of reaching for their *wands* before they manage to get themselves hexed into unconsciousness by five opponents, two of whom are older than they are and who also attack from behind. And then they get stepped on. While they're unconscious. Uh-huh. Yeah. "Menacing." To Harry I'm sure that they really did seem that way. He has his reasons for viewing them in that light. But to many readers, I think that it comes across as more purely *pathetic* than as anything else, and it's hard to imagine how the author could not have anticipated that the scene would be read that way. I mean, come on! You just do *not* describe a smirk as "quivering" unless you want readers to interpret the smirker's internal state as highly ambivalent. You just don't. Finally, the text often seems to me to actively encourage the reader - - or at the very least its adolescent female readership -- to not only sympathize with Draco but also to find him slightly erotically appealing, by the mere virtue of showing him getting physically hurt so very often. Oh, come on now! Don't look at me like that. You all *know* what I'm saying here. It's the old "Hurt-Comfort" phenomenon, is what this is, and we all know about it, even if we like to pretend that we don't. What "Hurt-Comfort" comes down to is the fact that women are just plain Bent, and adolescent girls even more so. They *like* to see male characters suffer, so long as they do so with some degree of manly dignity, because it turns them on. Male vulnerability garners their sympathy, and it also kind of excites them. They like it. No one ever wants to 'fess up to this, but it's true. Just look at the characters most often fixated upon as drool-worthy by JKR's adult female readers, will you? Lupin. Sirius. Snape. We all know what's *really* going on there, don't we? Are we all grown-up enough to admit it? All three of those characters have erotic appeal primarily because they all *suffer* so much. Lupin's kindness wouldn't alone be sufficient to make him so sexy; it's all of that exhaustion and illness and emotional damage that really nets in the fans. Sirius without all those years spent in Azkaban wouldn't have nearly the following that he has. And Snape...well, it's all that angst that does it, right? Female readers are almost always attracted to male characters who get hurt a lot. They just are. And Draco does get smacked around a *lot* in these books. He gets ferret-bounced and hippogriff-slashed and pimp-slapped and seriously hexed. And that's just the sort of thing that female readers -- and particularly adolescent girls -- really go for. It's why they think Harry's so sexy too, I'd warrant. It's because they're twisted little FEATHERBOA wearers, each and every one of them. And JKR must know this. She *must.* I mean, even Draco himself -- who's really rather stupid, honestly -- is hip to this dynamic. Just look at how he responds to Pansy in _PoA,_ when she asks him if his arm hurts. Draco knows the score, all right. A macho "nah, not really, don't worry about it" just isn't going to win you any eros points from an adolescent girl, unless there's one heck of a wince accompanying it. And Draco knows that. To get the adolescent girls crushing on you, you have to be hurt...yet still doing okay with it. But not *too* okay. Not really okay down deep inside. Just marginally okay. Okay for now. Okay, but tottering dangerously on the cusp on not really okay at all. Yeah, I think that JKR knows what she's doing with that one. I think she knew full well that all the adolescent girls were just going to swoon in guilt-ridden sadistic crush-mode the second that she smacked poor Harry with all of that Cruciatus in the graveyard, and I think that she knew exactly what she was doing when she started beating out her tune on that "Harry can't cry" drum, too. I think that she knew what she was doing when she gave us poor pallid haggard prematurely- grey Lupin, and I think that she knew what she was doing when she told us all about Sirius' haunted Azkaban eyes, and I even think it possible that she might have had some inkling of what she was up to when she kicked Snape's emotional legs out from under him for just a second there in "The Egg and the Eye." So what gives with Draco, then? Why *does* the author seem to want to hurt him so much? Ostensibly, it's to give us all a bit of "Just Desserts" satisfaction, but is that really all that's going on? I don't know. But I do wonder about it sometimes. For one thing, if you want to make a male character suffer and yet be absolutely certain that no reader will be the slightest bit tempted to get any erotic charge out of it, then there are certainly ways to do that. The author can stave off "Hurt-Comfort," and JKR herself seems to know exactly how to do it. She does it all the time when she writes Pettigrew, who no matter how much pain he might be compelled to endure throughout _GoF,_ no matter how vulnerable he may be, nonetheless never *once* derives the slightest bit of erotic frisson from any of it. That's because the author goes to great lengths to describe his suffering as simply disgusting, and his vulnerabilities as just plain pathetic. She works really *hard* at that. Similarly, she knows exactly how to handle my boy Avery in the graveyard to make his own little bout of Cruciatus merely blackly humorous, rather than either sympathetic or at all appealing. So why can't she do the same for Draco? She doesn't even have him "scream" when he gets attacked by Buckbeak. He's certainly acting like a great big baby, but at the same time, the verb that she actually chooses to use for his line there is "yell," which is a lot more macho then her usual "shrieking," to be sure. And while Hermione may take a great deal of pleasure in mocking Draco for his fearfulness in the wake of the ferret-bouncing incident, the way that JKR actually chooses to describe his behavior in the immediate wake of the incident is really remarkably sedate, given that she's dealing with a character who is supposed to be such an absolute coward. He picks himself up off the floor, and he's flushed and dishevelled. But he doesn't even whimper. This is really *not* the way to go about writing a character whom you wish to discourage as an object of some erotic interest among your female readership. It really isn't. There are very simple ways to discourage such readings. But when it comes to Draco, JKR isn't using them. All of which does, to my mind, beg the question of just what JKR's intentions towards this character really are. If she doesn't want people to read him as sympathetic, then why on earth does she keep pulling her punches with him? She *could* take action to combat all of the built-in sympathy points that Draco is racking up in the text. She certainly has shown that she knows how it's done. She knows how to battle Sympathy for the Devil, and she knows how to nip Hurt-Comfort in the bud. She has *shown* that she knows how to do these things. But when it comes to Draco, she's not doing them. In fact, in some places, the text even seems to be actively *encouraging* all of those so-called "subversive" readings of his character. It's certainly curious, and it does make me feel somewhat more sympathetic towards the notion that perhaps Draco is indeed being set up for some narrative function other than that of pure antagonist. I don't really think that Redeemed!Draco is necessarily all that likely an outcome. But I do think that it is rather more plausible than it might at first appear. One thing that I do feel fairly certain of, though? James wrote: > Draco!Corpse anyone. Yes. I will happily take a helping of DeadDeadDead!Draco. Because you know, there is not one character in the entire series who strikes me as having "Doomed To Die In Book Seven" stenciled across his forehead quite so blatantly as Draco Malfoy. He's ducking the vulture droppings even as we speak. Whether he's getting a last- minute redemption or not, whether he's going at his father's hands or Harry's or Voldemort's or even his own, whether he will wind up spending the next three volumes irritating me by being a profoundly unsatisfying (IMO) foil to Harry, or whether he will finally be given something a bit more interesting to do with himself, whether he will degenerate into a pathetic whining SYCOPHANTic villain's sidekick, or whether he will finally get something on the ball and manage to do something *right* (or at least manage to do something *wrong,* but with some degree of competence) for a change, whether he's going to outlive his father or not, that is one thing that I do feel sure of. He's dead, James. -- Elkins From naama_gat at hotmail.com Mon May 27 11:38:44 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 11:38:44 -0000 Subject: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39084 Hi, Just one point. Draco's unsatisfactoriness originates (if I understand you correctly) from his presumed role of Peer Rival to Harry, right? Well, I'm not sure that I agree that that is exactly his narrative role. I mean, yes, of course it is - he is a peer and a rival of Harry. The thing is, Draco is not Harry's true rival (arch enemy). The true rival is Voldemort, and in facing him, Harry is truly involved in a heroic struggle. The conflict with Draco is definitely not heroic, but that's OK. As far as narrative roles go, I'm quite happy with loser!Draco. He provides action which is fun to read. Voldemort action, on the other hand, is dark and stressful (the parts I least like rereading are the final denouments with Voldemort). If Draco was too powerful, it would make the skirmishes with him too intense, which would change the balance of the books and of the plot. Give too much power to Draco, make him successful, and you lessen the uniqueness of Harry's struggle with Voldemort. So, in the context of the overall story, Draco is there, IMO, to underline Harry's strength, both for the sheer fun of seeing him get his but kicked, but also to prepare us for Harry's final victory over his true enemy - Voldemort. On a sidenote, I have to protest against the Hurt and Comfort sex (!) appeal you presume. I am female and I find Draco totally repulsive. Really. As far as I'm concerned, he deserves everything he gets, and then some. I loved the ferret scene and relished over every smack he got, horrible little bullying sneak. So there. Oh, and I wasn't aroused when Harry was writhing with Cruciatus!! What's the matter with you, woman?! Naama grateful, for once, for her (normally debilitating) repression mechanisms From foxmoth at qnet.com Mon May 27 14:52:06 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 14:52:06 -0000 Subject: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39085 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > Hi, > > Just one point. Draco's unsatisfactoriness originates (if I > understand you correctly) from his presumed role of Peer Rival to > Harry, right? > Well, I'm not sure that I agree that that is exactly his narrative > role. I mean, yes, of course it is - he is a peer and a rival of > Harry. The thing is, Draco is not Harry's true rival (arch enemy). > The true rival is Voldemort, and in facing him, Harry is truly > involved in a heroic struggle. Right! Well, half-right, IMO Draco is not Harry's rival. Draco is *Ron's* rival. Draco's wealth, only child status, family influence and Quidditch prowess are all in contrast to Ron, not Harry, and here the match is much more even, as Draco still has quite a few things that Ron wants. Just as JKR has written Draco as more sympathetic than a villain ought to be, she has written Ron as less sympathetic than faithful sidekicks usually are. I mean, would Jimmy Olsen ever stop speaking to the S man for a whole month? Rowling has got quite a number of people wanting Draco to turn good and a fair few convinced that Ron will turn evil. I am not sure either of these things will ever happen, but by raising the question in our minds JKR shows her mastery of the art of narrative drive. We're convinced that *something* is going to happen with those two and that's what makes us keep turning pages and buying books. Pippin From skelkins at attbi.com Mon May 27 15:15:19 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 15:15:19 -0000 Subject: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39086 Hi, Naama. > Just one point. Draco's unsatisfactoriness originates (if I > understand you correctly) from his presumed role of Peer Rival to > Harry, right? > Well, I'm not sure that I agree that that is exactly his narrative > role. I mean, yes, of course it is - he is a peer and a rival of > Harry. The thing is, Draco is not Harry's true rival (arch enemy). > The true rival is Voldemort, and in facing him, Harry is truly > involved in a heroic struggle. No, I agree. That was why I was so careful to consistently use the term *peer* rival, or *peer* antagonist. Naturally Voldemort is Harry's actual arch-enemy. Poor Draco! He's not even strong enough to make me feel satisfied with him as Harry's *peer* rival! I would hardly try to set him up as Harry's ultimate foe. That would be pretty sad, wouldn't it? > The conflict with Draco is definitely not heroic, but that's OK. As > far as narrative roles go, I'm quite happy with loser!Draco. He > provides action which is fun to read. Interesting. So do you see the entire schoolboy rivalry aspect of the books as in part a kind of comedic relief, then, providing some respite from the darkness and stress of the heroic struggle? I hadn't thought to read them that way before. I'd been seeing them more as paralleling than as alleviating the darker aspects of the books, but your own reading makes a lot of sense -- and it is also *far* more relaxing than my own, which I confess that I often find a bit depressing. > Oh, and I wasn't aroused when Harry was writhing with Cruciatus!! Nah. It's not watching the poor kid writhe and scream that's supposed to arouse you. It's imagining how you, and you alone, could Heal His Wounds And Make Him Whole. That's the part that's supposed to get you all warm and fuzzy inside. Hence the "comfort." > What's the matter with you, woman?! I've spent far too many years analyzing how people read texts, and it has twisted my mind. Also, I'm no fun at parties. -- Elkins From JPA30 at cam.ac.uk Mon May 27 09:06:30 2002 From: JPA30 at cam.ac.uk (archeaologee) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 09:06:30 -0000 Subject: Murder spree Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39087 Now, before I get a reputation for killing off the characters one by one, I thought I'd post this. There are seven Harry potter books, you know it, I know it and JKR knew it almost before she put pen to paper in that famouse Edinburgh cafe. A complete arc. Well whilst reading Elkins' last post (and it's always lovely to have someone recall a post that you thought was dead - not to mention agree with your musings) I had a thought. What are the stories really about? Good vs Evil? The Rise and fall of Voldemort? A boy coming of age? Harry's life? Well that last one seems interesting. First chapter, first book, famously re-written ad nauseam, title? The boy who lived. What if he doesn't. There is no need for him beyond p.1 book seven. JKR has often said that there will be one death that will be very hard to write (and much debate ensued). She also claims (sorry Penny no reference, but I think it was on the BBC documentary this xmas) that people always beg her not to kill Ron as they feel he's the most vunerable. Well, who's the least vunerable? Harry. At least in the meta-text (thanks go to Elkins for that expression). He may quake and tremble, face dragons with fear, and be bitten by overgrown poisenous snakes - bur REALLY. He survived the most feared wizard of the age as a baby (and, no, I don't buy that mother-love excuse, never even stated as the reason he survived - just assumed and implied) what can really hurt him. When we all knew there would be deaths\death in book four, who thought it would be Diggory. Even in the course of the book who thought that (well maybe a few more people than my first statement). She loves to surpise us. The arc is complete. So why not kill him, and if you're going to do it, I say chapter one final book. Scare the hell out of everyone (on the train maybe, on the muggle motorway on the way to King's cross - not protected... dead). Then defeat Voldemort through that. The total outrage of this loveable, strong, brave, little soldier's untimely demise would surely galvenise the wizarding world and force them to accept the return of 'you know who' as real (although this will probably happen before book seven). I like it more and more. Thought I'd throw that out there. James From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Mon May 27 15:19:31 2002 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 27 May 2002 15:19:31 -0000 Subject: File - hbfile.html Message-ID: <1022512771.115470514.87148.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39088 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cindysphynx at comcast.net Mon May 27 15:28:38 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 15:28:38 -0000 Subject: Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame & A Taste of Moody In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39089 Oh, Elkins' post has been really very helpful. All this time I *knew* I didn't care for Draco, but I couldn't easily put my finger on the reason. But now I know ? Draco is Ever So Lame! Boy, that just rolls right off the tongue, doesn't it? ;-) And as an extra special bonus, I am being served a healthy portion of Draco is Ever So Dead! Is it possible to order up seconds of that one? As for Sympathetic!Draco? Er, I'll get to him in a minute. ************** Elkins wrote (about Draco's effectiveness as Peer Rival): > As the story currently stands, Draco is indeed presented very much >as Harry's rival, his peer antagonist. That is his ostensible >narrative function within the text. And yet, he strikes me as far >too *weak* a character to really fulfill this role in at all a >satisfying manner. Elkins goes on to list a tremendous number of ways in which Draco is Weak. A Screw-up. Powerless. So far, so good. Allow me to pile on, if I might. ;-) Draco's Lameness even extends to his friends. Harry gets Ron and Hermione ? both talented, capable, brave, heroic (despite the issues I have with Hermione's characterization). Draco gets, um, Crabbe and Goyle, who are given nothing whatever to do and are described in consistently unfavorable ways. Draco's Lameness extends right up his family tree, too. Lucius doesn't fare well at all against James Potter, does he? James is Heroic (having saved Snape from a werewolf), athletic (being good at Quiddich) and Popular. James got the capable Lily; Lucius got Narcissus. Lucius, despite being alive and well, appears not even to have an *occupation*. So what conclusion should we draw from all of this? Elkins proposes that JKR might not intend for Draco to be just the Peer Antagonist: Elkins: > It therefore becomes difficult to avoid the nagging suspicion that > perhaps Draco is *not,* in fact, really meant to serve as Harry's > peer antagonist throughout the entire series at all, that perhaps >JKR may indeed have some slightly different role planned for him by > series' end. Oh, I dearly hope you're right. `Cause by the end of Book 4, I was really ready to skip Harry's interactions with Draco. I mean, JKR has Draco do little in these confrontations other than heckle, which gets old fast. But, I fear, I'm not seeing Redeemable!Draco. I think JKR is writing Draco as a flat cariacature with no redeeming characteristics at all at the moment. That's how I see him, anyway. So if JKR were really intending to redeem Draco, then why has she deliberately dug herself into such a very deep hole? Wouldn't the task of redeeming Draco have been much easier (and ultimately more believable) if JKR had started a bit closer to the finish line? For the anti-Draco readers (and I *can't* be the only one out there), it would take a *tremendous* event for my sympathies to swing dramatically in his direction. The fact that Draco is currently written as so far from redemption signals to me that JKR isn't going to even *try* to redeem him. In other words, I suspect that if she is "cheating" in any direction with Draco, she is cheating in the direction of Non-Redeemable!Draco rather than Redeemable!Draco. Put differently, I think JKR is just playing it safe. Harry is the hero, of course, so Draco has to fare worse than Harry overall. Allowing Draco to win from time to time, granting him some power and sympathy, might make for a better characterization, true. But then again, perhaps JKR knows that the series won't work *at all* if she gets this wrong and gives Draco too much in the way of power/sympathy. So she plays it safe by pushing him far from Sympathetic and Redeemable, IMHO, which will make things easier when it time for Draco to spiral into True Voldemort-Style Wickedness. Elkins: > I don't even really believe that he's at all popular, although I >know that many people have come to the opposite conclusion. Ah, but there might be one area, one very important area, in which Draco is more successful than Harry ? romance. Harry certainly has certain advantages in this area. He wins at sport. He saves people's lives. He gets hurt. Harry has it all working for him. But who gets a *real* date for the Yule Ball? Well, Harry and Draco both find escorts. But Harry, having been turned down by the one girl he finds attractive, is with someone he doesn't have any real feelings for and who he barely knows. Draco, on the other hand, is with Pansy, who, while no looker, is someone with whom Draco frequently interacts. Draco, it seems, is Lucky In Love. Elkins: > As a reader, therefore, my reaction to Draco in his narrative role >as Harry's peer rival is primarily one of intense *frustration.* >It just doesn't seem right to me. It doesn't work. It's not a >fair enough contest. Draco strikes me as so hopelessly outclassed >on every conceivable level that I simply can't take him at all >seriously as Harry's peer antagonist. Harry already has him licked >on all fronts, as far as I'm concerned, so if that's really all that > Draco is there to do, then what on earth is the *point* of him? I find it interesting that so many people answer this question ("What is the point of Draco?)" with Redeemable!Draco. I'm thinking more along the lines of GoingToHellOnASled!Draco. You know, DE! Draco, who will become increasingly Evil and will take his place among the DEs who can't shoot straight. The disloyal, cowardly DEs. The "Shrieking During Cruciatus" DEs. Why isn't it that the Train Stomp could well be the turning point for Draco? To date, he has been Evil but Harmless and Powerless. Isn't Draco's future much more likely to be having JKR take him farther down the path of Evil? That would explain why she started off so far down that path to begin with. She isn't planning some Miraculous Redemption. She just got a head start on making Draco Ever So Evil. Heck, just for fun, one could draw parallels between the Train Stomp and the Prank. If one likes to speculate that Snape became a DE largely because of Dumbledore's non-reaction to the Prank, then perhaps Draco will be pushed toward Evil if Dumbledore doesn't discipline the Trio for the Train Stomp? And I don't have a crystal ball or anything, but I really don't see Dumbledore disciplining the Trio for the Train Stomp. Nope, can't see it happening. Which will give us Draco the Bitter Future DE. After all, Draco is being set up as marginally competent and powerless. And who else do we know who was marginally competent and powerless? Peter, that's who. I wonder if, like Peter, Draco will conclude that the best way to distinguish himself is by turning to Evil. ************** OK, enough about Redeemable!Draco. On to why all of these male characters are so darn Sexy! Let me re-arrange Elkins' post a bit to get right to the Meat of this thing: ;-) Elkins: > What "Hurt-Comfort" comes down to is the fact that women are just >plain Bent, and adolescent girls even more so. They *like* to see >male characters suffer, so long as they do so with some degree of >manly dignity, because it turns them on. Male vulnerability >garners their sympathy, and it also kind of excites them. They >like it. No one ever wants to 'fess up to this, but it's true. Oh, thank goodness! I thought I was losing my mind there. I was starting to wonder what was *wrong* with me! And now I know. I simply succumbed to the "Hurt-Comfort" phenomenon. Better yet, it's not even my fault! JKR did it to me *on purpose*! Elkins (on Snape, Sirius, Lupin): >All three of those characters have erotic appeal primarily because >they all *suffer* so much. Lupin's kindness wouldn't alone be >sufficient to make him so sexy; it's all of that exhaustion and >illness and emotional damage that really nets in the fans. Sirius >without all those years spent in Azkaban wouldn't have nearly the >following that he has. And Snape...well, it's all that angst that >does it, right? Oh, wow! This explains Hagrid and Dumbledore, too! Does Hagrid ever get physically hurt? Nope, nothing comes to mind. Oh sure, he was unjustly accused in CoS and when he was expelled long ago, but that is *nothing* compared to the horrors visited upon Sirius and Lupin. And Dumbledore? Uh, having a scar on his leg that looks like a map of the underground doesn't do it for me *at all* because we don't know how he got it. No, Dumbledore doesn't get hurt either. Heck, I have deeper "Hurt Compassion" feelings for Professor Kettleburn than Hagrid or Dumbledore. Same thing for all of the male characters over whom women do not swoon: Arthur Weasley, Percy, the Twins, Vernon. No heinous injuries = no sex appeal. Now, Charlie Weasley has potential, what with having that big shiny dragon burn on his arm. Elkins: > Yeah, I think that JKR knows what she's doing with that one. I >think she knew full well that all the adolescent girls were just >going to swoon in guilt-ridden sadistic crush-mode the second that >she smacked poor Harry with all of that Cruciatus in the graveyard, >and I think that she knew exactly what she was doing when she >started beating out her tune on that "Harry can't cry" drum, too. But . . . but . . . there is one male character who just doesn't fit the pattern at all: Moody. Now, I just love Moody because I'm drawn to his power and Toughness. And he sure has been injured enough times. And he is so alone and desperately needs the love of a good woman and all. But good grief, is there a single person out there who can make the case that Moody is *sexy*? I mean it is difficult to even *type* Sexy!Moody. So why is that? Moody suffers, both before GoF and during GoF. But for some reason, I worry that I might not even *like* Real Moody, let alone sympathize with him. It does seem that JKR is trying to show him hurt yet brave about it. JKR really lays it on thick: "Stunned . . . very weak. . . . he's freezing." Later, Moody is in the hospital and is "motionless." Moody fights bravely before being subdued by Crouch Jr. and Wormtail. Normally, I would eat this stuff up. But it doesn't work at all if JKR is trying to set up Moody as another Lupin or Sirius Sympathetic Male Character. Why not? And why is Moody's portrayal at the staff table "extremely twitchy, jumping every time someone spoke to him" so unsatisfactory? Was that JKR's attempt to make sure that we don't begin to identify to closely with Moody? Is he supposed to be something other than heroic, hmmmmm? And most importantly, is there any way I can twist this canon to support Ever So Evil Moody? ;-) Elkins: >I even think it possible that she might have had some inkling of >what she was up to when she kicked Snape's emotional legs out from >under him for just a second there in "The Egg and the Eye." I don't know. I think JKR needs to have Snape really take a beating before he'll make it into the same league as Lupin or Sirius. Grabbing his arm in the "The Egg and the Eye" doesn't make it. That's one reason why I don't quite get all of the Sexy!Snape feeling on the list. If we add a few Cruciatus Curses into the mix, Snape might rise to the level of Sirius and Lupin. But not yet. Not by a long shot. Maybe later. Elkins: > For one thing, she never lets Draco win. > And that is sympathetic. It's sympathetic because for the most >part, people prefer to root for underdogs and losers, especially >ones who have pluck and always get back on their feet again no >matter how many times they're knocked down. Yes, but is the underdog really sympathetic when the victor is always the hero? I mean, Draco usually plays the loser in comparison to Harry (and Hermione, to a lesser extent). In contrast, Draco gets Ron's goat on a regular basis. Draco triumphs over other Slytherins and becomes the Seeker. Draco triumphs over Neville in the Rememberall incident. Draco triumphs over Hagrid in the Buckbeak incident, losing out in the end to Harry, not Hagrid. So this supports my preferred reading of Draco ? that he isn't sympathetic or being set up for redemption. His purpose is only to make Harry look good and give Harry someone to beat. If Draco changes, then who will fulfill that role in the next three books? No, I think we're struck with Ever So Lame Draco, but we can dream of Ever So Evil Draco. Elkins: > This phenomenon, which sometimes goes by the name "Sympathy For >the Devil," can be fought. No particular effort is being >made to counteract Sympathy For the Devil when it comes to Draco, >which does sort of make you wonder whether part of the reason for >this might not be that the author herself really doesn't *want* for >him to forfeit all of that nice reader sympathy that he gets by >virtue of being marked as the designated loser. Ah, but there's a big difference between Draco and Voldemort. JKR is much more constrained by reality in writing Draco, I think. Draco *can't* be allowed to do anything truly monstrous because if he did, the reader would be jolted into wondering how Draco can get away with it without being expelled. Voldemort, of course, is operating outside the proper wizarding world. So he can be a monster, and he is. Personally, I am hoping that the next three books are set outside of Hogwarts. Then Draco will be free to spread his Ever So Evil wings. If he doesn't, then we'll know that the reason isn't the constraints of the Hogwarts setting. So how can we rule out the possibility that JKR is writing these sympathetic Draco characteristics as a nod to believability rather than to generate any real sympathy in the reader? Cindy (hoping Elkins will someday write an essay making me feel better about my *issues* with Hagrid) From Edblanning at aol.com Mon May 27 16:02:19 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 12:02:19 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame (and TBAY three hedgehogs)) Message-ID: <12e.11ecc46f.2a23b28b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39090 Naama: > Just one point. Draco's unsatisfactoriness originates (if I > understand you correctly) from his presumed role of Peer Rival to > Harry, right? > Well, I'm not sure that I agree that that is exactly his narrative > role. I mean, yes, of course it is - he is a peer and a rival of > Harry. The thing is, Draco is not Harry's true rival (arch enemy). > The true rival is Voldemort, and in facing him, Harry is truly > Isn't this the precise point? His narrative role *appears* to be as Harry's chief rival *within Hogwarts*. If he weren't who he is (say, he was an obnoxious Gryffindor), he could even be his chief rival in the fight against Voldemort (whom I would argue to be Snape, who receives in some ways similar treatment from JKR). The conflict with Draco is definitely > not heroic, but that's OK. As far as narrative roles go, I'm quite happy > with loser!Draco. He provides action which is fun to read. > Voldemort action, on the other hand, is dark and stressful (the parts > I least like rereading are the final denouments with Voldemort). > If Draco was too powerful, it would make the skirmishes with him too > intense, which would change the balance of the books and of the plot. > Give too much power to Draco, make him successful, and you lessen the > This is of course true. But the point, I think, is that this superficial rivalry *isn't* his literary function, although it is the way he is *perceived* by some, who may not be as perceptive as you. > So, in the context of the overall story, Draco is there, IMO, to > underline Harry's strength, both for the sheer fun of seeing him get > his but kicked, but also to prepare us for Harry's final victory over > Do we need to be prepared by his rivalry with another student? Each book prepares us for his final victory through his confrontations with Quidemort, Sirius, the Dementors, Tom Riddle and of course, with the re-embodied Voldemort. However, the Voldemort confrontations happen only episodically. Characters like Draco and Snape (and from time to time, Ron, Hermione, various Hufflepuffs, even the whole of Gryffindor, on occasion) provide a background of character-building opposition over which our hero must rise. > > On a sidenote, I have to protest against the Hurt and Comfort sex (!) > appeal you presume. I am female and I find Draco totally repulsive. > Really. As far as I'm concerned, he deserves everything he gets, and > then some. I loved the ferret scene and relished over every smack he > got, horrible little bullying sneak. So there. > > Oh, and I wasn't aroused when Harry was writhing with Cruciatus!! > OK, I'm going to stand up for Elkins here. I don't think for one minute that she's suggesting that we're all sado-masochists. Although it's an interesting thought. ;-) The main thing that came across to me from this part of her post was the concept of the attractiveness vulnerability. I personally don't think that's very odd. Turn it on it's head. How many women actually find male machismo really attractive? That's something men do for the benefit of other men, isn't it? Should I re-phrase that? Perhaps. Machismo is to do with male rivalry, and whilst heroism and strength can be attractive in themselves, add some vulnerability and you get a headier mix. Well, for some of us, anyway. Now I'm not turned on by Harry writhing with Cruciatus, either. I'm not turned on by Harry or Draco at all. Possibly something to do with the fact that they're about.....well, more years than I'm going to admit to publically..... too young for me. And I have a 12 year-old son, who may have jaundiced my view a bit :-). As far as the characters go, I'm much more interested in the adults. But if you're really engaging in the fantasy, identifying with and living the books, then Harry is *our* hero. When he takes a Cruciatus, he's taking it *for us*. And if I were young enough, I think I could see a kind of attraction in that. ;-) And I think Elkins is spot on with what she says about Lupin, Sirius and Snape. > Naama > grateful, for once, for her (normally debilitating) repression > Do you really mean that? Because you can only repress something that's there. :-) Apparently Bent!Eloise Who has just read Pippin's reply and thinks that the Draco/Ron rivalry is also telling and would also like to add her admiration for the Mme Lestrange post, both as a theory and as a piece of story-telling. /// ____________ <'<<<< ------------ No: HPFGUIDX 39091 Cindy: > But . . . but . . . there is one male character who just doesn't fit > the pattern at all: Moody. Now, I just love Moody because I'm > drawn to his power and Toughness. And he sure has been injured > enough times. And he is so alone and desperately needs the love of > a good woman and all. > But good grief, is there a single person out there who can make the > case that Moody is *sexy*? I mean it is difficult to even *type* > Sexy!Moody. I sure can't do it. There's a difference, I suppose between 'having suffered' and being horribly mutilated. ;-) I mean, right from the start, she makes sure we know that he is deeply physically unattractive. What's that I hear you say? 'Snape' was it? Ah, there you have me, because she does the same thing with him, doesn't she? However, you could, in theory (perhaps if properly motivated, as someone once suggested) do something about his appearance with some shampoo and some of that whitening toothpaste that Porphyria goaded me into buying. Moody physically appears to be irredeemable as a sex-object. And there's that creepy eye that sees through your clothes. Snape just reads your mind! > > So why is that? Moody suffers, both before GoF and during GoF. But > for some reason, I worry that I might not even *like* Real Moody, > let alone sympathize with him. It does seem that JKR is trying to > show him hurt yet brave about it. JKR really lays it on > thick: "Stunned . . . very weak. . . . he's freezing." Later, > Moody is in the hospital and is "motionless." Moody fights bravely > before being subdued by Crouch Jr. and Wormtail. Normally, I would > eat this stuff up. But it doesn't work at all if JKR is trying to > set up Moody as another Lupin or Sirius Sympathetic Male Character. Why not? Lupin and Sirius are both younger, Sirius avowedly handsome and when we first meet them, they both basically need feeding up. Oh dear, plays right to those nurturing instincts, doesn't it? Somehow, I don't think Moody is the type to be nurtured. His paranoia also isn't a terribly attractive feature. Perhaps another reason why we don't feel sympathy at the end of GoF, is the fact that we've just realised that we haven't met him at all, no matter how much we know about him from Crouch Jr's portrayal and whilst we might feel an impersonal sympathy for his plight, we don't have a relationship with the character. > And why is Moody's portrayal at the staff table "extremely > twitchy, jumping every time someone spoke to him" so > unsatisfactory? Was that JKR's attempt to make sure that we don't > begin to identify to closely with Moody? Is he supposed to be > something other than heroic, hmmmmm? And most importantly, is there > any way I can twist this canon to support Ever So Evil Moody? ;-) > Weeelll..... I suppose we can't have the whole book stuffed full crush material. Perhaps he's simply another variation on the theme of the unattractive good guy. The one that *no-one*, not even weird Snape-fans, find sexy. ;-) What you've pointed out, though, is that suffering for the cause *per se* isn't sexy, there has to be something else. Is his twitchiness unsatisfactory? I guess I might be a little twitchy if I were already paranoid and had just spent an entire school year locked in a trunk. I'm not sure we can read too much into it. But it's true that she does seem to be trying to make him unattractive. Whether this is because he's going to be Evil, or simply for the sake of either variety or emphasising the diverse nature of Dumbledore's team, I wouldn't like to say. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Mon May 27 16:43:46 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 16:43:46 -0000 Subject: Murder spree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39092 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "archeaologee" wrote: James wrote: > First chapter, first book, famously re-written ad nauseam, title? > The boy who lived. > > What if he doesn't. > > There is no need for him beyond p.1 book seven. > > JKR has often said that there will be one death that will be very > hard to write (and much debate ensued). I do recall an interview text, probably one of the Scholastic interviews, but don't have time to look it up, were someone asked JK if she was going to write books beyond Hogwarts about Harry. Her reply was to the effect "you are so sure he is going to survive that long". Maybe that was some more of her foreshadowing she is known for in these books? Gretchen From dalesian at shaw.ca Mon May 27 04:33:19 2002 From: dalesian at shaw.ca (Teri Gardner) Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 21:33:19 -0700 Subject: Evil Draco? Dead Draco?; Snape and the In-Crowd; Harry as Fifth Wheel. In-Reply-To: <1021940530.2786.77619.m14@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.1.0.14.0.20020526201144.00a0aea0@shawmail> No: HPFGUIDX 39093 >From: "Sarah Tilson" >Subject: Re: Re: Evil Draco? Dead Draco? > >Quoth Aldrea: > > >Ooh, that would be a very interesting development. I also like to > >think of how things would develop if Draco were to witness his > >father's death at the hands of Voldemort. Since he seems to think > >that his father is oh so powerful, and on the way to being even more > >powerful, how would such a development shake him? And if his father > >was killed, and his family sort of layed open to the things that > >perhaps they had been shielded from so far(say, raids by the MoM?), > >how would this affect Draco's actions? He'd loose alot of bragging > >rights... > >Very interesting twist on the Redeemable!Draco theory...But while we're on >the subject of Draco dying and bringing up other works of literature... >I was re-reading the Aeneid in preparation for my AP Latin exam, and there >was a particular subplot that made me think of the Malfoy clan: >Mezentius, a king so thoroughly evil that his subjects can't wait to >desecrate his body when he dies, has a son named Lausus who is possessed of >a Noble Heart (tm). However, Lausus loves and worships his father despite >his evil and obeys him without question. While battling with Our Hero >Aeneas, Mezentius is wounded and Lausus defends him, dying in the process. >Mezentius is grief-stricken at the death of his son, and this causes him to >repent his evil actions and honor the memory of his son by acting nobly, >dieing in battle, yadda yadda yadda. > >A lot of people assume as a matter of course that Draco can be redeemed from >darkness. But what about Lucius? >Perhaps this Dead!Draco thing might be the turning point that loses >Voldemort his most powerful ally...either Draco makes a Noble Sacrifice and >Lucius Realizes the Error of His Ways, or Voldemort kills Draco and Lucius >realizes that not even association with the Dark Lord is proof against his >evil... > >Just a silly theory from a loopy classics freak ^_^ No, not necessarily silly. Now that you mentioned it, it's something to consider. Mind you, I've always postulated that Draco wouldn't be so much as redeemed as realise that Voldemort couldn't care less about his supporters and if Draco decides to side with good, it would be more in enlightened self interest. Draco at the moment still hero-worships his father and also thinks his father's word is law. He's a spoiled, rich brat who thinks his parents are still gods. Hopefully he'll get a clue in the next book or two and realise that this isn't so. Either that or see what his father is reduced to in Voldemort's presence. The fawning and bowing and "yes, my Lord" crap. Draco's not above manipulating folks himself, but I wonder if he'd stoop to that sort of behaviour to get what he wants...he seems to have a strong sense of pride about him, and admitting he was wrong upon joining the good fight...heh..I don't see it happening. I also don't see him suddenly being all goody-goody and righteous about things either, which is why I tend towards enlightened self-interest. (And that's me being cynical too.) Personally, I'm not overly fond of the character but I'd like to see him realise that his father is not a god and Voldemort couldn't care less about his supporters. Draco could also easily be used as a bargaining chip to keep Lucius in line (or killed just as easily as, say, Potter's parents), since it's pretty obvious Lucius is so very ambitious and will stop at nothing to get what he wants...still, if Draco thinks so highly of his father, I doubt Lucius treats Draco badly at all. Probably quite the opposite and being the only kid Lucius has (as far as we know), even if he didn't treat Draco well, losing his only heir would not be good and likely something Voldemort could use against Lucius if he were to step out of line. Besides, Voldemort doesn't seem to keen on treating his loyal supporters well never mind those he deemed as slighting him in some respect. Draco's not a stupid kid...a bit blinded at the moment, but not stupid. My personal hope is he'll figure it out. I would like to see that, besides Snape, you don't have to be "good" to fight for what's right. Draco would be another good example of this. >From: "fleurmellor" >Subject: R.E hermione as mirror of Snape >I kind of mean this whole idea to illustrate that Hermione has what Snape >wanted in his school days to be 'in with the in crowd' eg the marauders. >I'm sure plenty of people dont agree with this but I can't help thinking >that from Snapes extreme reaction to Harry and apparently all the meddling >he did in the >maraders affairs that he would have liked to have been friends with them, >and that his death-eater palls were second best. you have pointed out >Hermiones >meddling in Harry and Rons buisness as her seeking friendship, I think >Snapes nosing into the Marauders buisness was similar. Either that or Snape was just a nosey git who liked to get others' in trouble if he could or just know things about others whether he'd use it or not (grew up with a few folks like this) or, well, there's always a simple "personality conflict" scenario to consider. I'm not sure I agree myself with the idea that Snape wanted to be in with this particular "in crowd". You'd think if he wanted too that badly, he would have taken an entirely different approach to getting in with them, rather than being nasty towards them, Slytherin or not. But of course, that's me going on the theory that not all Slytherins were "evil" or "nasty" and the only reason we see them as such is because Harry does. > > Porhyria wrote: > > >I > > >imagine that Snape might have gotten over > > some > > >of his > > >intolerance > > >from his DE days (directed against > > Muggle-borns, > > >for example. > >I always thought that Snape would have been a DE for mainly reasons of >getting Power and prestige and not been overly consumed with hatred for >Muggles/muggleborns. I'm sure he probably didn't really care less about >bad things happening to them but I cant imagine him hating someone just >because of their parentage. Unless you're Harry Potter ;) >There seems to be several things that hit the top on the 'Snape hate- >o-meter' I would put fame seeking (real or percieved), stupidity, >weakness, know-it-all-ness, people who have wronged him(again real or >percieved) and people who have made him look a fool before pure blood >issues as >the things that really get his goat! I agree with you on this one . Heh..."Snape Hate-o-meter" I like that one. >From: "anavenc" >Subject: An idle thought on shipping R/H > >I often read that Rowling based Hermione's character on herself and >Ron's--on her own best friend, what's-his-name. Now, I don't know >how a writer's mind works (and it's a shame, after all those months >of reading fanfiction I should :)), but with romance not being the >central theme of the books and all that... wouldn't it be more >economical for Rowling to take a perfectly good best friends >relationship from real life, maybe with some romantic interest at >some point, but definitely just best friends in the end... and just >put it on paper instead of inventing something different for these >two? I have to admit, I would like to see Ron and Hermione get together, but at the same time, I can see what you're saying. I think too, that a romantic relationship between Ron and Hermione, at least while the trio were still at Hogwarts, would change the whole dynamic of...what did Snape call them in CoS? The Dream Team? Anyway, Harry would suddenly be the fifth wheel and that could be interesting but also awkward, especially because he's such close friends with both of them and what happens if they have a spat or something...they're both going to run to Harry (I've been in this situation...it ain't fun). So, maybe it's best it doesn't happen at all, or happens after the big War with Voldemort. Teri From gwendolyngrace at yahoo.com Mon May 27 19:34:17 2002 From: gwendolyngrace at yahoo.com (gwendolyngrace) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 19:34:17 -0000 Subject: Official Philip Nel Question #9: House Elves Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39094 Greetings, everyone! It's time for the long-awaited, much-anticipated, can't-be-stopped- from-talking-about-it-ahead-of-time-beloved, 9th question in the Philip Nel series! Before we get into the topic, I just wanted to tie this week's discussion in to something real happening in the world right now. And what momentous event is occurring this week? Why, the US release of the home-movie-version-of-choice-of-the-film-that-must-not-be-named! For those who will deign to own a copy of the aforementioned cinematic representation, I'm sure they, like me, will be staring at their screens at home over the next few days with the same mixture of emotions expressed at the release of said FTMNBN in theatres. BUT, you ask, HOW does this tie in to HP? Why, as we all are glued to our sets, particularly our DVD players, checking out the cut footage, watching Quidditch in stop motion, etc., we will get hungry! The laundry will go unwashed! The dishes will pile up in the sink! The housework, in short, will be left undone. So this week's Nel discussion question begins with a tribute to those tiny creatures some of us wish we had to help clean up around the house: Pets. Er. No. Children? Nope . I mean house-elves. The house-elf's a servant most rare, He must always be treated with care, For this type of menial, Is loyal and genial, Even if his tea-towel is threadbare. The house-elves are patient and kind, And tasks janitorial don't mind. But when they're abused, It just can't be excused. What else about them can we find? Yes, folks, we're here to talk about house-elves. All house-elves, all the time. So without further ado, Dr. Nel's actual questions: 1. Jonathan Levi said that GoF was "the first children's book to endorse slavery since Little Black Sambo." Do the Potter novels endorse the house-elves' enslavement? Consider the positions on elf rights taken by Ron, George, Mr. Weasley, Dobby, Winky, Hermione, Sirius Black and Harry. With whom are our sympathies supposed to lie? 2. If the HP novels endorse subjugation of the house elves, do they endorse enslavement? Or should we instead see Rowling as recognizing the limitations of social reform? Are we supposed to be outraged or sympathetic to George Weasley's statement that the house elves are happy (GoF, pg 211)? A related point: Hermione says that the house elves have been brainwashed into accepting their jobs. Should we agree with her? Do we see the means through which the elves are brainwashed? And as promised, our follow-up questions: Aside from the discussions that have broken out in the last month or two, these questions, or ones like them, have come up numerous times on the list. The central debate seems to center around one question of interpretation: Are the house-elves meant to be taken as literal beings, or are they meant to represent a metaphor for something? And if they are metaphoric, then what exactly is the message Rowling is trying to send through them? When considering your answers, think too of the controversial and contradictory evidence we have about house-elves. They clearly have some wandless magic of their own, and that magic can be powerful: case in point, when Dobby blasted Lucius Malfoy down the stairs. They can seemingly circumvent the Apparation prohibition in Hogwarts, or else their cracking in and out of places is not the same kind of magic. How about the food-related magic? The prohibitions on clothing? How do these kinds of power relate to their overall sense of being/nature as a race/role within the books? Lest you feel adrift in the torrent of information, witness our next service: That of providing some previous threads of interest. This is a list of message numbers close to or at the start of several threads that pertain to this discussion. Feel free to follow the threads along; some of it's very interesting: 14696 wherein Margaret Dean comments on "how close their nature is to human nature." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/14696 14716 in which Amy Z champions Hermione's cause. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/14716 15347, a nugget of wisdom from mecki http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/15347 16617, Steve Vanderark's "backstory" for the roots of elf enslavement http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/16617 16908 and the thread it sparks: Amy Z's comparison of house-elves to the house-wife. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/16908 16998 Amanda's point-by-point analysis of the house-elf system as we had seen it to date http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/16998 17156 Okay, this one's more humourous. But it's a cute take on the importance of socks. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/17156 18486 A thread that attempts to reconcile the office of house-elf relocation with the rest of what we know about elves. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/18486 21058 In this thread, we discuss whether Dobby might not be in full control of his wits. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/21058 26545 A discussion of the wizarding caste system, started by Barb Purdom http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/26545 26785 In which I get a little excited about this issue and confuse Amy Z with Amanda, among other errors in perception. But my points are good. Really. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/26785 30594, wherein Eleri makes a similar point to mine much more succinctly. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/30594 37038, A re-opening of the house-elf issue from back in March. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/37038 Which leads us to the recent discussion of house-elves. Please, talk amongst yourselves. I'll be back with my own responses to March and April's points in a few messages. Gwen From dicentra at xmission.com Mon May 27 19:51:11 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 19:51:11 -0000 Subject: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR and Lestrange In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39095 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., elfundeb at a... wrote: > > Cindy: > > > > But you've given me a bit of a brain wave. Only a little one, > > really. But all this Memory Charm business aside, why isn't Neville > > simply operating under the Imperius Curse? > > Debbie pencils in dramatic quote from GoF on Imperius: > > "It was the most wonderful feeling. Harry felt a floating sensation as every > thought and worry in his head was wiped gently away, leaving nothing but a > vague, untraceable happiness. He stood there feeling immensely relaxed, only > dimly aware of everyone watching him." > > "And Harry felt, for the third time in his life, the sensation that his mind > had been wiped of all thought." > Dicentra snatches the script from Debbie's hands and swipes the red pencil. She circles "for the third time in his life" about 30 times and begins jabbing at it with the pencil. "What is the meaning of this?" she demands. "When were the other two times? When the dementors got him? I don't think so: that's the sensation of horrible memories returning. Has Harry been Imperio'ed before, without his knowing, or were those other two times something else? Have these times even been mentioned?" Dicentra draws a red flag on the script and tosses it back on Debbie's lap. "I'm too busy to go searching through a couple thousand pages for this. Let some LOON get it." Then remembering something, she snatches the script again, tears off the last page, scrawls something on it with the pencil, and stalks off, leaving Debbie a bit startled and perplexed. Dicentra goes to the refreshment table and finds the bottled water. She opens one and dumps it out as she walks toward the beach, muttering something about selling water being a scam. Then she rolls up the paper, stuffs it into the bottle, and after tightening the cap tosses it into the Bay. Much later, Pippin sees the bottle drifting by and, curious, retrieves it. The paper says "Dear Pippin. Way good catch noticing Mrs. Figg's sudden change in demeanor. Tell Pip that the cake was probably old because Madame Lestrange can't cook, so she had to retrieve something the real Mrs. Figg cooked before being cold-cocked and captured. I'd come tell you this in person but I don't want to get in trouble for not combining posts." --Dicentra, who would like seconds of DeadDeadDead!Draco, please From Edblanning at aol.com Mon May 27 20:30:37 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 16:30:37 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR and Lestrange Message-ID: <39.27b15d14.2a23f16d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39096 Dicentra, perplexed about the description of Harry's experience of Imperius for *the third time*: > Dicentra snatches the script from Debbie's hands and swipes the red > pencil. She circles "for the third time in his life" about 30 times > and begins jabbing at it with the pencil. > > "What is the meaning of this?" she demands. "When were the other two > times? When the dementors got him? I don't think so: that's the > sensation of horrible memories returning. Has Harry been Imperio'ed > before, without his knowing, or were those other two times something > else? Have these times even been mentioned?" > > Dicentra draws a red flag on the script and tosses it back on > Debbie's lap. "I'm too busy to go searching through a couple thousand > pages for this. Let some LOON get it." I'm not sure that I'm a LOON, and I haven't looked it up, either, but, IIRC, what Debbie quoted was from the graveyard scene and the other two occasions were when Crouch/Moody put Harry under Imperius in class. Hope that helps, as they say, Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at aol.com Mon May 27 20:44:05 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 16:44:05 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR and Lestrange Message-ID: <72.1cf4a16e.2a23f495@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39097 With many apologies to all who could not identify the context of the following two quotes, which I inadvertently left out of a prior post. > > "It was the most wonderful feeling. Harry felt a floating > sensation as every > > thought and worry in his head was wiped gently away, leaving > nothing but a > > vague, untraceable happiness. He stood there feeling immensely > relaxed, only > > dimly aware of everyone watching him." GoF, ch. 15. The second quote, which appears below, is from the graveyard scene, when Voldemort tried to make Harry answer his question about whether he wanted to be Crucio'd again. > > > > "And Harry felt, for the third time in his life, the sensation that > his mind > > had been wiped of all thought." The second time was earlier in the graveyard scene when Voldemort forced Harry to bow before dueling. Again, I apologize profusely. It was an inadvertent error, resulting from adding a second incident without changing the intro. Debbie > > > Dicentra snatches the script from Debbie's hands and swipes the red > pencil. She circles "for the third time in his life" about 30 times > and begins jabbing at it with the pencil. > > "What is the meaning of this?" she demands. "When were the other two > times? When the dementors got him? I don't think so: that's the > sensation of horrible memories returning. Has Harry been Imperio'ed > before, without his knowing, or were those other two times something > else? Have these times even been mentioned?" > > Dicentra draws a red flag on the script and tosses it back on > Debbie's lap. "I'm too busy to go searching through a couple thousand > pages for this. Let some LOON get it." > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Ali at zymurgy.org Mon May 27 21:15:12 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 21:15:12 -0000 Subject: Murder spree In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39098 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "archeaologee" wrote: > Now, before I get a reputation for killing off the characters one by > one, I thought I'd post this. > > > A complete arc. > >I had a thought. What are the stories really about? Good vs Evil? The Rise and fall of Voldemort? A boy coming of age? Harry's life? Well that last one seems interesting. First chapter, first book, famously re-written ad nauseam, title? The boy who lived. > > What if he doesn't. > > There is no need for him beyond p.1 book seven. > > > She loves to surpise us. The arc is complete. So why not kill him, and if you're going to do it, I say chapter one final book. Scare the hell out of everyone (on the train maybe, on the muggle motorway on the way to King's cross - not protected... dead). Then defeat Voldemort through that. The total outrage of this loveable, strong, brave, little soldier's untimely demise would surely galvenise the wizarding world and force them to accept the return of 'you know who' as real (although this will probably happen before book seven). Or how about the last chapter being entitled "The wizard who died", to show the symmetry of the books. How about Harry dying on Halloween, the day that he may have been conceived, the day his parents died and the day that he had previously survived. How about Ron and Hermione getting together and in the future their first born being named Harry - after their tragic friend. > > I like it more and more. > Actually, I don't! Seriously I don't think that Harry would just get killed. He's the hero of the books, so surely he would have to die a hero's death. His death would have to bring down Voldemort rather than merely act as a catalyst for others to bring Voldy down. IMO there are now several characters who have their cards marked, but I still dread the idea of Harry dying, and am still hoping for a bangy end with Harry surviving to live happily ever after - I know very soppy but still I can hope. In fact, the only thing I dread more than Harry dying is not enjoying the rest of the series! Mind you, JKR did sound pretty adamant about there not being any further books, so that must cut down on Harry's chances of survival! Ali > From Ali at zymurgy.org Mon May 27 21:58:26 2002 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (alhewison) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 21:58:26 -0000 Subject: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR and Lestrange In-Reply-To: <72.1cf4a16e.2a23f495@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39099 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., elfundeb at a... wrote: > With many apologies to all who could not identify the context of the following two quotes, which I inadvertently left out of a prior post. > > > > "It was the most wonderful feeling. Harry felt a floating > > sensation as every > > > thought and worry in his head was wiped gently away, leaving > > nothing but a vague, untraceable happiness. He stood there feeling immensely relaxed, only dimly aware of everyone watching him." > > GoF, ch. 15. The second quote, which appears below, is from the graveyard scene, when Voldemort tried to make Harry answer his question about whether he wanted to be Crucio'd again. > > > > > > > "And Harry felt, for the third time in his life, the sensation that his mind had been wiped of all thought." > > The second time was earlier in the graveyard scene when Voldemort forced Harry to bow before dueling. Ah, here I think I might have to disagree with you - and perhaps repolish my LOON badge that I was awarded a few weeks ago:- When Voldemort makes Harry bow in the graveyard scene, there's no mention of Harry's mind being wiped of all thought, but there is another occasion that might pass the test: when Harry first sees the Veela we are told: "Harry's mind had gone completely and blissfully blank" (p.94 GoF UK Hardback). So, as I read it, although he wasn't under the Imperius curse when he saw the Veela, the description is similar enough for the graveyard Imperius to be the "third time" his mind had been wiped of all thought - although only the second time he had actually been under the Imperius curse. (This only works if you count Crouch/Moody's attempts to get Harry to throw off the curse as one time, as it all happened in the same lesson). Ali (Wondering if it's a good thing to come up with Loony answers, and wishing she could come up with entertaining theories instead - oh well!!!) From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon May 27 22:24:25 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 22:24:25 -0000 Subject: Hurt-Comfort was Re: Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39100 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: This was so packed with great ideas, I don't know where to start. > What "Hurt-Comfort" comes down to is the fact that women are just > plain Bent, and adolescent girls even more so. They *like* to see > male characters suffer, so long as they do so with some degree of > manly dignity, because it turns them on. Male vulnerability garners > their sympathy, and it also kind of excites them. They like > it. No one ever wants to 'fess up to this, but it's true. Just look > at the characters most often fixated upon as drool-worthy by JKR's > adult female readers, will you? Lupin. Sirius. Snape. > > We all know what's *really* going on there, don't we? Are we all > grown-up enough to admit it? All three of those characters have > erotic appeal primarily because they all *suffer* so much. Lupin's > kindness wouldn't alone be sufficient to make him so sexy; it's all > of that exhaustion and illness and emotional damage that really > nets in the fans. Sirius without all those years spent in Azkaban > wouldn't have nearly the following that he has. And Snape...well, > it's all that angst that does it, right? If "Hurt-Comfort" is all it takes, how would you explain then the almost perfect dichotomy of Sirius and Snape fan clubs? I know 1 (one) person who likes them both, for the rest they appear quite incompatible. (Oh, and don't tell me it's about that P***k, it's much more basic than that - they are different archetypes) > > Female readers are almost always attracted to male characters who get > hurt a lot. They just are. And Draco does get smacked around a > *lot* in these books. Then how come Neville does not win any popularity contests? Not with the girls in the Hogwarts, not with the girls that read about Hogwarts? > I think that she knew > what she was doing when she gave us poor pallid haggard prematurely- > grey Lupin, and I think that she knew what she was doing when she > told us all about Sirius' haunted Azkaban eyes, and I even think it > possible that she might have had some inkling of what she was up to > when she kicked Snape's emotional legs out from under him for just a > second there in "The Egg and the Eye." "The Egg and the Eye" is nothing compared to the end of PoA, I'm telling you. Granted, not even badge-wearing Snapefan like me wished Sirius dead just to make Sev happy, but why could not Dumbledore find another way of doing it? And I think Dumbledore himself had some regrets about choosing "the easy way" in PoA. He might have had an easier time in GoF, getting Fudge to accept Snape and Harry's evidence, if he did not leave him with the impression they are both mentally unstable just a year ago. Back to "The Egg and the Eye" - it's not about Moody really, it's the thought that Dumbledore allowed, or maybe even instructed Moody to search his office - that was the main source of hurt in my reading of this scene. Irene From catlady at wicca.net Mon May 27 23:13:30 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 23:13:30 -0000 Subject: Imperius and Hurt-Comfort (not at the same time) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39101 Ali Hewison wrote: > when Harry first sees the Veela we are told: > "Harry's mind had gone completely and blissfully blank" (p.94 GoF > UK Hardback). > So, as I read it, although he wasn't under the Imperius curse when > he saw the Veela, the description is similar enough for the > graveyard Imperius to be the "third time" his mind had been wiped > of all thought - although only the second time he had actually been > under the Imperius curse. Hmm. Does that suggest that Veela magic is a form of innate and perhaps automatic Imperius Curse? The command "Desire me!" cast on any and all men in the vicinity (or any and all straight men and gay women: JKR didn't specify). Therefore sharing whatever qualities of Imperius Curse that cause it to be Unforgivable? (As I do not believe that the Unforgivable Curses have nothing to distinguish them as a group except all being mentioned in the same regulation.) Irene wrote: > If "Hurt-Comfort" is all it takes, how would you explain then the > almost perfect dichotomy of Sirius and Snape fan clubs? I know 1 > (one) person who likes them both, for the rest they appear quite > incompatible. I am only one of the myriad of HPfGU women who rush, whenever someone claims that there is a dichotomy between fancying Severus and fancying Sirius, that *I* fancy both. But I don't fancy Sirius as Hurt-Comfort: the Sirius I fancy is the pre-Azkaban one, the handsome boy with laughing eyes, who takes crazy risks flying on his motorcycle and doesn't think of consequences ... and I only want to sleep with him (and *maybe* be friends): he is NOT husband material. Fancying Severus is a real case of Hurt-Comfort, in fact a cliche of cheap romance novels: the tall, dark, powerful,intelligent, NASTY man who won't let people get emotionally close to him, but the Nastiness is the result of his own tremendous inner suffering, and the romance heroine (i.e. the reader ... or Draco in my fic!) manages to melt that ice, get close to him, heal his inner suffering with her love, and then he loves her, with romantic words, hot sex, and more respect for her thoughts and feelings that he has ever shown for anyone else's before. > Then how come Neville does not win any popularity contests? Not > with the girls in the Hogwarts, not with the girls that read about > Hogwarts? Because it's not enough to be a poor hurt little woobie whom the bleeding hearts want to baby and the Tough want to slap and shout: "Get over it!" The romance heroine can feel proud of having found an otherwise unrecognized treasure in a junkyard (yard sale, junktique shoppe), and bought it cheap and brought it home and fixed it up so that now everyone is awed at her valuable antique or precious gem, ONLY if what she found IS a treasure: that means, he has to, even when injured, show such 'masculine' virtues as ... well, not being fat (like Neville). And not being clumsy (like Neville). And not being nice (like Neville).... In fact, maybe maybe the only masculine virtue that the romantic hero has to demonstrate is Nastiness! So the romantic heroine is Even More Bent: a masochist as well as a sadist! From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Mon May 27 21:33:52 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 21:33:52 -0000 Subject: Coherence II/QWC Coherence II In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39102 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: These replies are slightly late; RL deadlines interfering. Apologies. Pip wrote: > > Next section: 'Why can't Quirrel touch Harry?'. This does not at any > > point say that Voldemort is going to be unable to touch Harry. What > > we are told about Voldemort is that he doesn't understand love, that > > he doesn't understand that Harry will be marked by his mother's > > sacrifice, that he doesn't realise that it gives Harry *some* > > protection [my emphasis]. > > > > Dumbledore's last line is > > "Quirrel, full of hatred, greed and ambition, sharing his soul with > > Voldemort, could not touch you for this reason." > > > > Note that Quirrel is the subject of that sentence, not Voldemort. We > > are left believing that Voldemort cannot touch Harry because of the > > way the information about Quirrel, and the information about > > Voldemort, is mixed together. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "dicentra63" wrote: > And yet... in the rebirthing scene, Voldemort taunts Harry by > stroking his face with that long, cold white finger and > saying "see,I can touch you now..." You are absolutely correct. And if you go through the books you will find there is no on-stage scene where Harry tells this information to anyone who we would know could have told it to Voldemort (say, Moody, or Ron when Scabbers is in his pocket). So, either Voldemort has reached same conclusion independently (which would strongly suggest that I am completely wrong), or: [Innocently] I don't know if anyone has noticed this, but at the end of GoF, there's a gleam in Dumbledore's eye... [flattens herself on the floor as a stream of curses, jinxes, dungbombs and howlers fly over her head] Ah! Right. OK, you know about the gleam. [grin] And you've noticed that Harry often dreams about Voldemort, and those dreams are sometimes visions of what is happening to Voldemort. And at the end of CoS Dumbledore speculates that Voldemort has left a little of his soul in Harry. So, is the link two way? Does Voldemort know some things that Harry knows? And is that why Harry is being deliberately left in the dark about so much? Are Dumbledore's 'misdirections' of Harry actually aimed at Voldemort? Of course, if that is so, then JKR is definitely subverting the detective format. In detective stories, the detective is someone who *must* solve the case. In the Potterverse, it might be that 'detective' Harry is someone who *mustn't* solve it. Until, of course, we reach the end of book seven.:-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: >I'm working on a theory that all the stuff at QWC was *intended* as >red herrings (or background info, such as the name Death Eater). >Until she re-jiggered the plot to fix the infamous plot hole. I >wrote about it in > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38421 Like the theory. Not sure I agree with it yet, but you could end up with enough evidence to convince me. Have you considered whether a theory of 'Winky the House Elf is Ever So Evil' could fit into Crouch Jr impersonating Crouch Sr? Given that I am assuming that the whole QWC Barty escape attempt (which has NO coincidences if you decide it was planned/ordered by Voldemort and deliberately assisted by Winky) was designed by JKR to get Winky fired from her role as the Crouches's House Elf and thus 'plant' her in Hogwarts for a later book. Pip (Who really likes Winky. Really. But still suspects her. :-) ) From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Mon May 27 23:40:17 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 23:40:17 -0000 Subject: Imperius and Hurt-Comfort (not at the same time) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39103 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > Hmm. Does that suggest that Veela magic is a form of innate and > perhaps automatic Imperius Curse? The command "Desire me!" cast on > any and all men in the vicinity That would explain also why Harry is handling it better than Ron. Oh, and does it mean that there is more to Arthur Weasley than meets the eye? > > I am only one of the myriad of HPfGU women who rush, whenever someone > claims that there is a dichotomy between fancying Severus and > fancying Sirius, that *I* fancy both. OK, I take the incompatiblity statement back. But you do seem to agree that the reasons you like them are quite different? > Because it's not enough to be a poor hurt little woobie whom the > bleeding hearts want to baby and the Tough want to slap and shout: > "Get over it!" So basically the difference between Neville and Draco is that Draco is blonde and nasty? :-) I can see that. But Lupin is ever so nice! There is nothing nasty about him (well, 27 days out of 28 but who counts). Irene From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Tue May 28 01:06:54 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 21:06:54 EDT Subject: Oh Tom, Where Art Thou? Message-ID: <8f.1c96dd91.2a24322e@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39104 As I was reading my copy of CoS again, I realized just how interesting the character of Tom Riddle was. Here was this projection of a 16 year old, brilliant and evil enough to put a memory of himself into a diary - a memory with the capabilitites to re-open the Chamber of Secrets, and have another shot at becoming the Dark Lord. What I can't understand though, is why we haven't heard another peep from Tom Riddle. Maybe it's coming in future bookls - I hope so at least. I just think that the character of Tom Riddle is so fascinating. And to me, Tom Riddle isn't Voldemort - Rather, Voldemort is Tom Riddle. The hatred and evil started off in Tom - he began his growth to power as Tom Riddle, not Voldermort. The evilness in Voldy is from the pain and loneliness that Tom had. Deep inside, V is fighting for Tom. He began his reign of terror because of all he had experienced as Tom. I believe that another manifestation of Young Riddle has to pop up somewhere. Riddle's character is such a complex and brilliant figure, and I find it hard to believe that we've seen the last of him. Thoughts anyone? *Chelsea* From ladjables at yahoo.com Tue May 28 01:35:46 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 18:35:46 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Comparing "house-elfment" to slavery (Part 1) In-Reply-To: <00c801c1ec05$43301220$407d63d1@texas.net> Message-ID: <20020528013546.75529.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39105 Hi everyone, Although this post falls under the Phillip Nel question on house-elfs, I felt compelled to respond to Amanda's post (Message # 38149), which in turn was a reply to my own post comparing aspects of house-elf treatment-hereafter known as house-elfment for lack of a better term-to slavery (Message # 38118). This gives me a chance to clarify and emphasize some points, and hopefully answer some of Dr. Nel's questions, albeit in a circumlocutory fashion. Please note: 1)Given JKR's strong views on intolerance, I think that it is possible to interpret the house-elf experience as slavery. 2)In this post I am specifically referring to the enslavement of Africans by Europeans (which I believe applies to my model), not slavery within Africa, and not Christian slaves. 3)Confusion with historical dates on slavery: unless otherwise stated, I generally mean British colonial slavery, (where slave economies were outposts of the British Empire), as opposed to slavery in America. Britain passed the Abolition Act in 1834. 4)I make reference to slavery as being mental, not just physical/legal. House-elfs are not slaves because they "serve" wizards; they are slaves because they are servile. Slavery would not be an issue if slaves believed they were free, or if masters believed domination was unnecessary. The oppressor and oppressed both create the logic of slavery. Part 2 will deal more with this. 5)This is going to be a detour post, since I have to touch on linguistics, Darwin and history. If you're not interested in wading through this morass, you may scan the itemized summary at the bottom of this post. And then of course share your thoughts! I previously highlighted some aspects of house-elfment that seem to point to slavery: > 1) Dobby's voice: Dobby's and Winky's speech > patterns in GoF are extremely similar to the Black > American English of the 19th century, if there are > any linguists on the list. Really, all we need is a > "yes, massa" and we're set. Dobby's quasi-Gullah > dialect is more notably pronounced in GoF than in > CoS. It's interesting that in creating a voice for > Dobby, JKR would use an idiom with such strong > connotations. Did anyone else spot this? Amanda replied: > Actually, it reminded me of a creole. It seems > entirely likely to me that house-elves have their > own language, and speak a creole when addressing > humans. And the similarity to Black English is > understandable--it also has creole roots. I didn't > think JKR was trying to make any kind of point with > their speech, other than to pick a logical format > that would make it sound foreign. But, why would they speak a creole when addressing wizards, as opposed to Standard English? The goblins speak their own language, but Griphook speaks perfect English IIRC. Isn't it important to consider *who* traditionally spoke a creole? Wittgenstein once remarked, "the limits of my language mean the limits of my world". Language shapes the way you see and interpret your world. As a form of expression, it is a means of defining yourself. If you cannot communicate in the established language, you are severely disadvantaged. Historically, a creole, in contrast to a standard language, emerged as a modified version of a dominant language, spoken by those who had little or no access to formal education, usually members of some marginalized group. "Creole" comes from the Portuguese "crioulo" (with possible African origins), which means home-born slave, and is usually but not exclusively applied to Afro-Caribbean English. A creole still carries the stigma of being an uneducated speech of the lower classes, having originated as a slave dialect. House-elfs probably speak creolized English because it suitably reflects their oppressed position in Wizard society, uneducated so that they may be controlled. This was my point. Wouldn't JKR, who has studied languages, be aware of the tension between standard and creole, of this sociolinguistic barrier erected between the upper/lower classes, the dominant and the subjugated? I think it very significant that she gave house-elfs a basilect that can be easily connected to a slave dialect. On Dumbledore's attitudes to house-elfs: > He doesn't seem to regard rigid enforcement of > house-elf status as necessary to maintaining > stability in the wizarding world. That's a sign, to > me, that house-elfs really don't need to be so > controlled. Amanda: > I don't get the feeling that the wizards *are* > actively controlling them, at least not usually. The > elves themselves, by their attitudes, bind > themselves. And it may be there are magical benefits > or contracts involving their status that we do not > know about. Restricting their powerful magic and their freedom of speech isn't controlling them? Consider that the "domestication" of the house-elf renders actual physical control unnecessary. They are binding themselves because they are practicing self-oppression. More on this later. If Dumbledore can pay and clothe house-elfs, and respect their freedom of speech(this is the same egalitarian Dumbledore who gave half-giants and sensitive werewolves a second chance), I'm willing to bet the house-elfs are also victims of prejudice. Amanda: > I will propose again that the elves are not so much > bound to a family or a human as to a place, and the > bond is extended to the human that owns the > place. Winky may be as much an extreme as Dobby, in > her refusal to accept her dismissal and her > attachment to her former *people*, refusing to become > bonded with her new *place.* Sooooo, with Winky, JKR is portraying a victim of the debilitating effects of...homesickness? This is what she created Winky for? How edifying! On defending house-elfment on the basis that house-elfs belong to a different species I argued: > But, this was precisely the sort of argument used > to justify African slavery in the first place. Amanda: > This is irrelevant. Just because the "they're not > human" argument was used to justify slavery, in an > instance where it turned out to be untrue, doesn't > mean that it's *not* true in the case of > house-elves. They are another species. There is no > reason to assume their psychological needs are the > same as a human's. I think you missed my point. That house-elfs are another species is not in dispute. What is germane to the house-elf/slave discussion is how slaves were treated *when* they were believed to be another species. When slaves were regarded as inferior(NOT human) the capacity for abuse was created and sanctioned. Can we prove that the house-elfs, who may indeed have different psychological needs, are not manipulated to the wizards' advantage precisely because they are NOT human? "Not like us" encourages the notion that nonhumans may be treated unequally, as opposed to differently. I am not saying that house-elfs should be treated as humans, but an inherent danger exists once it is assumed that another group is not the same, i.e. human, and this is understood to mean not equal. Does "non-humanness" open the door for abuse in the case of the house-elfs? Fair treatment was sorely lacking when slaves were believed to be something other than human. Me: > It was the prevailing view at the time that blacks > were descended from the gorilla (their prominent > simian facial features were cited as evidence of > this link) and therefore not related to whites > (after all,Darwin's Origin of the Species isn't > published till a quarter century after the aboliton > of slavery, and public acceptance isn't immediate). Amanda: > Point of logic. If the Origin of the Species and > evolutionary theory was not published until after > the abolition of slavery (in America, be specific), > it could hardly have been the prevailing view that > blacks were descended from the gorilla. It would > never have occurred to anyone. They were regarded as > an inferior race, but the "descended from" is not an > accurate portrayal of the attitude of the time. My statement was not clear. It should read that Africans were considered subhuman. After Britain abolished slavery (JKR is British, correct?), they were treated no differently, because being legally free did not cancel out the "fact" that they were not human. Darwin's assertion that man was a primate made both blacks and whites human, because man(not just the black man) and ape were related. Master and slave belonged to the same species, and so the argument that Africans were not human was refuted. A racist mind would find this very hard to accept, hence one of the reasons Darwin's views were resisted from the very beginning. Later it became acceptable to see whites as the more advanced members of the species. Now, why would it not occur to anyone that blacks and gorillas were related, just because Darwin hadn't been published yet? Are you assuming thoughts on evolution began with Darwin? It's quite logical given the fact that simian features(found in all races actually) are found in certain racial groups in Africa. What would have prevented a racist slave trader from calling an African an ape? The connection is easily (though unwittingly) made without Darwin's help, thank you very much, even though I misleadingly used Darwin's terminology to express my point. On the European rationalisation for slavery as a legal institution, which may be comparable to the WW's justification for House-elf treatment, I said: > So someone came up with the perfectly brilliant, > logical notion that [Africans] would make an ideal > labour force because they had the stamina to > withstand a harsh tropical climate, once there were > overseers to supervise them and keep them in line. Amanda: > No, they were cheap, easily available, and more > resistant to European diseases than the Indians, who > kept dying in droves. How exactly are we disagreeing? Amanda: > Also, don't forget that the white, mostly Christian > slave-transporters were dealing with canny mostly > Islamic black slave-dealers in Africa. The latter > presumably knew perfectly well that their > merchandise was fully human, and still chose to > deal in it. So you can't generalize > slavery's origins to a belief that blacks were > subhuman, even if a large portion of the end market > did believe this. In order to justify enslavement, it was believed that "blacks were naturally predisposed to manual labour." Now, what about them made them this way? Well, they weren't like the average British planter and his family, they were something else. How else to convince yourself you belong to a civilized nation if you would enslave your fellow man? Answer: the African was not your fellow man. You can be civilized while abusing another living thing because it is not human. What would be abuse in a human being's case was simply different treatment for different creatures, and in the WW, this may make aspects of house-elfment acceptable. Even after slavery was no longer economically viable, were descendants of slaves able to do anything other than field work for another century or so? Were they educated, allowed to vote? Racism persisted, based on this view of blacks as inferior. African traders had a different notion of slavery, which in no way excused their actions, but I will deal with this later. It still stands: the slave in the New World, in Britain's colonies, was not recognized as a man, and this made maltreatment of another "species" acceptable. ------------------------------------------------------- To recap: -I have stated that my problem with the house-elfs is not that they're house-elfs; it's how they are TREATED as house-elfs. -Dobby's speech is similar to a slave dialect, as his is the voice of the marginalized. I think it's no accident that JKR gave Dobby and the house-elfs this so-called "subordinate" variety of language. -If Hermione's S.P.E.W. is over the top for you, consider Dumbledore's willingness to improve house-elf welfare(given Dumbledore's role in HP as mentor and moral compass) as a sign of the unfairness of house-elfment. -"Another species with different needs" may be misconstrued as reason not to empathize and therefore give license to exploit. The "not like us" logic supported slavery for centuries. Not being human does not eliminate the possibility that house-elfs are mistreated; it may increase it. Part 2 to soon follow... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From catlady at wicca.net Tue May 28 01:49:05 2002 From: catlady at wicca.net (catlady_de_los_angeles) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 01:49:05 -0000 Subject: Mystery and Evil!Winky and Sexy!Remus (not together) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39106 Pip wrote: > So, is the link two way? Does Voldemort know some things that Harry > knows? And is that why Harry is being deliberately left in the dark > about so much? Are Dumbledore's 'misdirections' of Harry actually > aimed at Voldemort? A suggestion worth frequent quotation. > Of course, if that is so, then JKR is definitely subverting the > detective format. In detective stories, the detective is someone > who *must* solve the case. In the Potterverse, it might be that > 'detective' Harry is someone who *mustn't* solve it. Subversion of the detective story format? Yawn. Not at you, or at Harry, but at ... Agatha Christie, isn't she the one who had the murderer be the narrator? And the recent movie Memento. Everyone always subverts the detective story. > Have you considered whether a theory of 'Winky the House Elf is > Ever So Evil' could fit into Crouch Jr impersonating Crouch Sr? > Given that I am assuming that the whole QWC Barty escape attempt > (which has NO coincidences if you decide it was planned/ordered by > Voldemort and deliberately assisted by Winky) was designed by JKR > to get Winky fired from her role as the Crouches's House Elf and > thus 'plant' her in Hogwarts for a later book. Granted that I am extremely gullible, I don't think of Winky as Evil or loyal to Voldemort, but rather as loyal to Barty Jr (whether that is due House Elf tradition or to a rather unsuitable 'ship'). If the bad guys killed or stunned/imprisoned Barty Sr so that Barty Jr could inpersonate him, Barty Jr would be in a position to fake firing Winky without rigging up all that QWC stuff, and count on her obedience in place at Hogwarts ... and for her to not have a chance of conflict of loyalty between Barty Sr and Barty Jr. (Conflict of loyalty would be a risk faced by a Barty Jr escape plot in which Winky was a conspirator.) So now Winky is a loose cannon at Hogwarts. If her loyalty was to The Crouches rather than to Barty Jr, which Death Eater is the son or husband of a woman nee Crouch? Irene wrote: > So basically the difference between Neville and Draco is that Draco > is blonde and nasty? :-) No, that Draco is thin and an adequate athlete (Seeker) :-) Do we know whether Neville is blond? > But Lupin is ever so nice! There is nothing nasty about him (well, > 27 days out of 28 but who counts). I fancy Remus most of all, and I don't believe it has anything to do with wanting to rescue him or mother him or because he is 'vulnerable': I believe his problems serve only to show how (emotionally) strong he is; I fancy him because he is so extremely kind (oh, the thought of someone being *that* kind to me!), and competent, and emotionally strong. But I didn't comment about Remus to Elkins because I'm aware that this is a difficult point to defend. From asilaite at hotmail.com Tue May 28 01:56:40 2002 From: asilaite at hotmail.com (anavenc) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 01:56:40 -0000 Subject: FF/SHIP: Authorial Intent, Canonical Plausibility, Draco/Hermione In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39107 My two knuts on canonical plausibility of fanfics: It's been stated on this list that JKR's characters are painted by very broad strokes of paintbrush. Some of them being complex, other flat, they all are rather schematically outlined, so to speak. I think, this makes HP characters a very good fanfiction fodder and (along with the immense popoularity of the books) explains the huge amount of HP fanfiction around. Fanfic authors don't have any trouble in filling a canon character's frame with personality aspects, which would make their plots and their pairings work. We can easily imagine both an Evilll!Draco and Redeemed!Draco, or, say, a Tortured_Hero! Snape and Sadistic!Snape; and I am sure, the well-written fics, featuring these character variants, are often convincing. Ana From foxmoth at qnet.com Tue May 28 02:21:58 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 02:21:58 -0000 Subject: Remus isn't THAT nice Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39108 Irene wrote: > But Lupin is ever so nice! There is nothing nasty about him >(well, 27 days out of 28 but who counts). Catlady said: >>>I fancy Remus most of all, and I don't believe it has anything to do with wanting to rescue him or mother him or because he is 'vulnerable': I believe his problems serve only to show how (emotionally) strong he is; I fancy him because he is so extremely kind (oh, the thought of someone being *that* kind to me!), and competent, and emotionally strong.<<<< First of all Remus is dangerous. There's no telling when he will forget to take his potion, except for the narrative certainty that it will be at absolutely the wrong time. But more importantly, Remus isn't *always* kind. I really wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of him. He might send a piece of chewing gum flying up my nose or humiliate me Snape-boggart fashion. Which makes me wonder... it would be interesting, wouldn't it, if it turned out that Remus really was in on the you-know-what? He never really said that he wasn't, did he? And Snape's suspicions, while often overblown, are seldom all-together off the mark either. Pippin From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue May 28 08:24:56 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 08:24:56 -0000 Subject: Comparing "house-elfment" to slavery (Part 1) In-Reply-To: <20020528013546.75529.qmail@web20402.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39109 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., ladjables wrote: > > Amanda: > > I don't get the feeling that the wizards *are* > > actively controlling them, at least not usually. The > > elves themselves, by their attitudes, bind > > themselves. And it may be there are magical benefits > > or contracts involving their status that we do not > > know about. > > Restricting their powerful magic and their freedom of > speech isn't controlling them? Consider that the > "domestication" of the house-elf renders actual > physical control unnecessary. They are binding > themselves because they are practicing > self-oppression. It seems to me that you are begging the central question here, which is - IS the house elves connection to humans innate (i.e., natural) or is it psychological (i.e., the result of "brainwashing"). You seem to already assume the latter. > > On defending house-elfment on the basis that > house-elfs belong to a different species I argued: > > But, this was precisely the sort of argument used > > to justify African slavery in the first place. > > Amanda: > > This is irrelevant. Just because the "they're not > > human" argument was used to justify slavery, in an > > instance where it turned out to be untrue, doesn't > > mean that it's *not* true in the case of > > house-elves. They are another species. There is no > > reason to assume their psychological needs are the > > same as a human's. > > I think you missed my point. That house-elfs are > another species is not in dispute. What is germane to > the house-elf/slave discussion is how slaves were > treated *when* they were believed to be another > species. When slaves were regarded as inferior(NOT > human) the capacity for abuse was created and > sanctioned. Can we prove that the house-elfs, who may > indeed have different psychological needs, are not > manipulated to the wizards' advantage precisely > because they are NOT human? But that involves different moral issues, doesn't it? Enslavement of human beings is wrong. Period. The enslavement of Africans was wrong, for this reason alone. Lets even assume that Africans were considered a different, sub-human species, but nonetheless were treated, as slaves, with great kindness and consideration. It wouldn't change the wrongness of the state of slavery at all - since Africans ARE humans. House elves may indeed be manipulated by wizards in unfair and unkind ways. We have seen the atrocities Dobby had to suffer. But that is a different moral issue, what is the proper way to treat a species that IS non-human and that has an innate need to serve humans? In the real world we have never had to deal with anything remotely like this, since we have no experience with non-human, intelligent species. > "Not like us" encourages the notion that nonhumans may > be treated unequally, as opposed to differently. If house elves are innately bound to serve humans, it's rather hard to imagine how they can be treated differently, yet equally. >I am > not saying that house-elfs should be treated as > humans, but an inherent danger exists once it is > assumed that another group is not the same, i.e. > human, and this is understood to mean not equal. Does > "non-humanness" open the door for abuse in the case of > the house-elfs? Fair treatment was sorely lacking > when slaves were believed to be something other than > human. Well, there were cases of slavery (in ancient Greece, for instance), where, with no racist attitudes, slaves were still callously and cruelly exploited. My main point, however, is that the problem with human enslavement, like I said, is simply that it is enslavement. Once you posit human slavery, you cannot meaningfuly speak of fair treatment. Fair treatment becomes an issue, IMO, only if the basic structure of the relationship is deemed legitimate. For instance, child abuse arises (logically, I mean) out of the natural dependency of children on their parents (or adults in general). The same goes for dogs. We accept that dogs have an innate connection and need of that connection with their owners. Otherwise, we would be protesting against the very concept of dog ownership, wouldn't we? Since we accept it, however, we try to provide for rules that protect the dog from abuse by his owner. So, first we have to decide whether the bond of servitude between house elves and humans is morally right, and only then (if we decide it is) can we debate what constitutes fair treatment of elves. Naama From jmt59home at aol.com Tue May 28 11:14:02 2002 From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:14:02 -0000 Subject: Sorry. Re: Imperius and Hurt-Comfort (not at the same time) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39111 My apologies for my last message, I didn't mean mean it to come out the way it did. OK Take two. --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > Ali Hewison wrote: > > > when Harry first sees the Veela we are told: > > "Harry's mind had gone completely and blissfully blank" (p.94 GoF > > UK Hardback). > > So, as I read it, although he wasn't under the Imperius curse when > > he saw the Veela, the description is similar enough for the > > graveyard Imperius to be the "third time" his mind had been wiped > > of all thought - although only the second time he had actually been > > under the Imperius curse. I see the Veela being more like the Mirror of Erised. After all, none of the men at the world cup where actually force to do something, more like they were living their desires. Since Harry had a crush on Cho, he wouldn't be as affected as Ron with Fleur. > > Irene wrote: > > > If "Hurt-Comfort" is all it takes, how would you explain then the > > almost perfect dichotomy of Sirius and Snape fan clubs? I know 1 > > (one) person who likes them both, for the rest they appear quite > > incompatible. Snip > > Then how come Neville does not win any popularity contests? Not > > with the girls in the Hogwarts, not with the girls that read about > > Hogwarts? Well, most people I've had this disscussion with, all say that Neville is cute and sweet and in a great need of a hug. I think the thing with Snape and Sirius is like the Veela, to have something and be in control of it. Most people feel attracted to it but in reality, I think most people would turn round to Snape and tell him to "get over it", which is something Neville does, after all. He doesn't use the excuse "look what happened to me" for his faults and gets on with things. He certainly doesn't hold his hurt like Snape (he is still friends with Harry and co. after all they did to him in the first year). Dogberry (feeling very guilty, runs and hides in a hole to revise for the last exam tomorrow) From ronale7 at yahoo.com Tue May 28 11:56:56 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (ronale7) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:56:56 -0000 Subject: Turning Point of the Potter Series Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39112 Recent letters have driven me to an unexpected conclusion--the turning point of the Potter series may have occurred in GF, chapter 21. Here's why: GF brings non-school magic to our attention--it mentions ancient magic at least three times (chapters 20 and 23.) In each instance the magic is used for protection. But one non-academic magic can be used to strike--Dobby's. Without incantation or wand, the green-eyed elf attacks Lucius Malfoy in CS chapter 18. And all house-elves we're told, (CS chapter 3) have powerful magic of their own. Yet to use it they need a master's permission. Free house-elves, on the other hand, could use it as they wish. In a fight they would be invaluable--perhaps telling--allies. Hold that thought and look again at GF. I had long suspected Rowling was structuring her series as Shakespeare structured his plays. In Shakespeare the climax typically occurs in the middle, in the third of the five acts. Thus I was looking for a turning point in GF, the fourth of the seven books. After reading an interview with Rowling, my suspicions strengthened. She said the book was pivotal in terms of plot. But where does the turning point occur, where does the main problem begin to be solved and the outcome determined? I kept looking for the climax in the graveyard scenes (chapters 32, 33, and 34.) Yet couldn't the pivot be HRH's visit to the kitchen? There Hermione stresses that elves and humans should have an employer-worker relation, not a master-slave. Indeed, she leaves thinking that when the other elves see how happy Dobby is, being free, they may want liberty too (chapter 21). Certainly Dumbledore would grant it. So might other masters on Dumbledore's side. The boys during that visit are showing how humans and elves can be friends without either being slaves. The trio's kindnesses delineate character but may have value beyond that. They may push the elves to freedom. It's not as dramatic a climax as ghosts issuing from a wand, or Voldemort's using Harry's blood or touching him. Not yet, though Rowling could make it so. But the thought of Dobby leading a metaphorical cavalry over the hill tickles my fancy. And it's just the sort of surprise Rowling loves to spring. --Ronale7 From Edblanning at aol.com Tue May 28 13:18:54 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:18:54 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Remus isn't THAT nice Message-ID: <1a8.2dfe9e8.2a24ddbe@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39113 Pippin: > > Irene wrote: > > But Lupin is ever so nice! There is nothing nasty about him > >(well, 27 days out of 28 but who counts). > > Catlady said: > >>>I fancy Remus most of all, and I don't believe it has anything > to do with wanting to rescue him or mother him or because he is > 'vulnerable': I believe his problems serve only to show how > (emotionally) strong he is; I fancy him because he is so > extremely kind (oh, the thought of someone being *that* kind to > me!), and competent, and emotionally strong.<<<< > Pippin: > irst of all Remus is dangerous. There's no telling when he will > forget to take his potion, except for the narrative certainty that it > will be at absolutely the wrong time. But going along with the hurt-comfort idea, or at least closely related in concept is the fact that the Remus-fan would never *allow* him to forget to take his potion, would they? And then their own dear little pet wolf would just curl up on the hearth rug until the full moon had passed. :-) > But more importantly, Remus isn't *always* kind. I really > wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of him. He might send a > piece of chewing gum flying up my nose or humiliate me > Ah, but that's the 'Edge' that was discussed a little while back, that feeling that someone *could* just be dangerous or cruel, but, of course they won't be with you! It adds a little frisson, don't you think? And Snape's nastiness, and his Dark background have more or less the same effect, I think. They add a bit of danger, even of scandal, which does have its own attraction, especially for those of us who would probably never go near someone like that in RL. Fantasy expands one's horizons - safely. ;-) > > Which makes me wonder... it would be interesting, wouldn't it, if it > turned out that Remus really was in on the you-know-what? He > never really said that he wasn't, did he? And Snape's suspicions, > while often overblown, are seldom all-together off the mark > No, they're not, are they? But I think Remus does feel guilty about that incident (is this now The Incident-Which-Must-Not-Be-Named?) and about the whole encouraging-his-friends-to-be- animagi thing and so, whether or not he was party to Sirius' plan, he wouldn't deny responsibility. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmt59home at aol.com Tue May 28 13:22:34 2002 From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 13:22:34 -0000 Subject: Oh Tom, Where Art Thou? In-Reply-To: <8f.1c96dd91.2a24322e@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39114 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Chelsea2162 at a... wrote: > As I was reading my copy of CoS again, I realized just how interesting the > character of Tom Riddle was. Here was this projection of a 16 year old, > brilliant and evil enough to put a memory of himself into a diary - a memory > with the capabilitites to re-open the Chamber of Secrets, and have another > shot at becoming the Dark Lord. What I can't understand though, is why we > haven't heard another peep from Tom Riddle. Maybe it's coming in future I would like to know how and why Tom became Voldermort. Why take the anger out on all muggles? And how did he find out about his mother and her family? Dumbledore talks about the transformations he undertook that made him unreconizable. Would this be how to defeat him? Something that about this that made the killing of Harry rebound on himself. Did somehow Lilly know, everyone is going on about the big revelation about her. Dogberry From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue May 28 13:15:46 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 13:15:46 -0000 Subject: Murder Spree Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39115 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "archeaologee" wrote: >> >> There are seven Harry potter books >> >> A complete arc. >> > What are the stories >> really about? Good vs Evil? The Rise and fall of Voldemort? A >> boy >> coming of age? Harry's life? Well that last one seems >> interesting. >> First chapter, first book, famously re-written ad nauseam, >title? >> The boy who lived. >> >> What if he doesn't. >> >> There is no need for him beyond p.1 book seven. >> >> JKR has often said that there will be one death that will be >very >> hard to write (and much debate ensued). >> >> She loves to surpise us. The arc is complete. So why not kill >> him, >> and if you're going to do it, I say chapter one final book. >Scare >> the hell out of everyone (on the train maybe, on the muggle >> motorway >> on the way to King's cross - not protected... dead). Then >defeat >> Voldemort through that. The total outrage of this loveable, >> strong, >> brave, little soldier's untimely demise would surely galvenise >the >> wizarding world and force them to accept the return of 'you know >> who' >> as real (although this will probably happen before book seven). >> >> I like it more and more. >> >> Thought I'd throw that out there. >> Chapter One? Only if she intends to spend the next ten years hiding under an assumed name. ;-) I agree that Harry is quite likely to die before the end of Book 7. The poor boy practically has to kick all the death omens out of the way to move at all! Even his godfather is a symbol of death! However, he is also surrounded by symbols of rebirth - his holly and phoenix feather wand being the most obvious. (Translates as 'it's late and I can't be bothered to look the others up'). So, we might have the 'so powerful he even survives death/is saved by sacrificing himself' angle. Or we might not. One of my favourite ever critical comments (and I sincerely regret that I do not know the name of this critic) was about C.S. Lewis's The Last Battle.(SPOILER) The comment was: 'The only children's book in history to end *happily* with all the major characters being killed in a train crash.' [my emphasis] And he was right. It is a happy ending. Pip (who likes happy endings. Even when they also have lots of dead bodies ;-) ) From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue May 28 14:01:51 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:01:51 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Madame Lestrange is Loose! (With Dementors & Bertha) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39116 Cindy hunches over her Memory Charm Symposium notes, frantically scribbling out a "MATCHINGARMCHAIR Double Jobberknoll With Ever-So- Evil-Moody Hurt-Comfort" Variant. Stoned!Harry peers over her shoulder, blocking her light. "Get your own theory and stop *copying* me!" she barks. Suddenly, Cindy sees a strange man apparate into Theory Bay next to Pippin. Cindy can just make out his features: high forehead, deep dark eyes, a prominent mustache, waxed into points, of which he seems inordinately vain. It's . . . But it *can't* be . . . But it *is*! It's *Snidely Whiplash*! Alarmed, Cindy bolts from her beach chair, her Double Jobberknoll notes blowing into the Bay, to be forever lost. Snidely has been known to tie beautiful young women to railroad tracks, and although there is no rail yard in Theory Bay, one could appear at any moment. Pippin needs help, and there is no time to spare. Cindy grabs GoF and, using it as a flotation device, launches herself into the chilly surf. *************** As I understand Pippin's theory, Mrs. Lestrange is the woman in the Pensieve scene. Certainly a reasonable assumption. And Mrs. Figg is part of the protection surrounding Harry. Another reasonable assumption. I think I'm on board (but poised to jump ship at any moment), although there is the obstacle that Mrs. Lestrange gets out of prison and no one notices or cares. Mrs. Lestrange is *infamous*, isn't she? There was tremendous pressure for her arrest, and the Pensieve Four were jeered by the mob. If she escaped from Azkaban, the event would receive almost as much attention as Sirius' escape. So if Mrs. Lestrange escaped, it was and still is a Big Secret. Surely ? surely ? Mrs. Lestrange isn't going to turn out to be a skinny cat animagus who maintained her sanity and then slipped through the bars of her cell and swam to the mainland. JKR wouldn't *dare* try to get another Bang out of that scenario. So, if Mrs. Lestrange managed to get out of Azkaban somehow, how exactly did she pull it off? There's only one clue that I can find. When the dementors take away the Pensieve Four after Crouch Sr. sentences them to life in Azkaban, Crouch Jr. certainly shows the effects of the dementors: "Harry could see their cold, draining power starting to affect him." But what of Mrs. Lestrange? Is she gasping for air as the strength is drained from her? Nope. She gives an impassioned *speech*. She isn't affected by the dementors at all, is she? How strange! We know the dementors are really on Voldemort's side (well, Dumbledore thinks so, anyway). So my guess is that if Mrs. Lestrange escaped from Azkaban, she did it differently from Sirius' method. Maybe, just maybe, she had the help of the dementors, who then kept quiet about her absence. Now, why didn't Fudge notice Mrs. Lestrange's absence during his inspections of Azkaban? After all, Fudge checked up on Sirius during Fudge's Azkaban inspections, right? Why didn't Fudge sound the alarm and launch a search when Evil Mrs. Lestrange suddenly turned up missing? Fudge is Ever So Evil his own self, that's why! He knew Mrs. Lestrange had been dispatched to overpower Mrs. Figg. He set the whole thing up, telling her exactly what to do to breach the protection zone around Harry. And he conspired with the dementors to keep the whole thing quiet. Pippin's theory touches on a second mystery: how *does* Voldemort know about the protections surrounding Harry? When Voldemort speaks in the graveyard and mentions the protections surrounding Harry, I think it is a fair assumption that he hasn't checked this out for himself. During the years Harry lived on Privet Drive, Voldemort was but a foul fume, struggling to survive in Albania. Even when Voldemort had reached slimy baby status, there isn't a hint that he ever went near Privet Drive. Even Harry is unaware of these protections, which suggests that they were treated as an Important Secret. There's also no suggestion that Voldemort was in contact with any DE who would have any idea about the protection surrounding Harry. If Voldemort gathered information about this, where did he get it? I think he likely got it from the one of just a few people: Wormtail ? Unlikely. How would Peter living as Scabbers have figured out the protections surrounding Harry when Ron doesn't even know? Maybe Peter heard something from Mr. Weasley, but there's no reason Mr. Weasley would know anything about this matter in light of his position at MoM. Crouch Jr. ? Maybe. But the only way Crouch Jr. finds out is by overhearing conversations at home while killing time under his invisibility cloak. And Crouch Sr. is in the Department of International Magical Cooperation ? hardly a MoM division that would be likely to know about the protections surrounding Harry. Crouch Sr. - Unlikely. Maybe Wormtail or Voldemort ordered Imperius! Crouch Sr. to ask around at MoM. But I doubt that Voldemort would have been willing to have Crouch Sr. risk drawing attention to himself by asking about the protections surrounding Harry. Bertha ? Getting Red Hot. But how would Bertha know anything about the protections on Privet Drive? Well . . . that depends on where you come out on Ludo Bagman, doesn't it? If Bagman is an Ever So Evil DE, he might well have been motivated to learn about the protections surrounding Harry, and being an idiot, he might have blabbed to nosy Bertha Jorkins, who gets tortured by Voldemort and would have definitely blurted out the protections surrounding Harry. In a way, the idea that Bertha Jorkins was the source of Voldemort's information about Harry's protection is consistent with the way Voldemort tells the story in GoF. Voldemort says Bertha "became a veritable mine of information." Voldemort says that Bertha told him about the Triwizard Tournament and about Crouch Jr. And then Voldemort adds that Bertha "told me many things . . . " Oooh, what was Voldemort driving at there? He's mighty specific about all of the other information he gets from Bertha, and then he adds this catch-all "told me many things." I'm keeping my eye on that Ludo Bagman. Yes, indeed. Cindy ******************** For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth eticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From maryblue67 at yahoo.com Tue May 28 14:06:09 2002 From: maryblue67 at yahoo.com (Maria) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 07:06:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Snape and Voldemort, and Voldemort and Quirrel In-Reply-To: <1022570811.1485.59721.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020528140609.6742.qmail@web11104.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39117 Hello listers! I got my DVD last week, and after watching the movie again i jumped on my PS to read it for the nth time. As usual, with each reading i think of something new, and this is what came out this time. In PS, Snape is suspicious of Quirrel, and thus he follows him and warns him several times that he is after him, and even thratens him. Now, does Snape know how close Voldemort is all this time (right in Quirrel's turban)? And, even if Snape doesn't know, Voldemort must be getting quite an impression on Snape's loyalty to Dumbledore, which is something i'm sure You-know-who will remember after he raises again at the end of GoF. Will Snape, if he is going to play the spy game again, be able to gain Voldie's trust after that? Now, i also have a question regarding Quirrel. I don't have the book with me, but i remember that Harry notices that Quirrell is wearing a strange turban once at Hogwarts. Also, at the end of PS, Quirrel is telling Harry how his Master was most displeased when he failed to steal the stone in Gringotts, and how he had to get a closer watch on him, or something like that. Does this mean that when Harry meets Quirrel at the Leaky Cauldron Voldemort is not yet sharing Quirrel's body? Any thoughts on this? Now, i better go back to studying.. Maria ===== Maryblue ---------------------------------------------------------- "Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love" - Eistein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue May 28 14:12:47 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:12:47 -0000 Subject: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame (and TBAY three hedgehogs)) In-Reply-To: <12e.11ecc46f.2a23b28b@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39118 > Just one point. Draco's unsatisfactoriness originates (if I > understand you correctly) from his presumed role of Peer Rival to > Harry, right? > Well, I'm not sure that I agree that that is exactly his narrative > role. I mean, yes, of course it is - he is a peer and a rival of > Harry. The thing is, Draco is not Harry's true rival (arch enemy). > The true rival is Voldemort, and in facing him, Harry is truly > Eloise: Isn't this the precise point? His narrative role *appears* to be as Harry's chief rival *within Hogwarts*. If he weren't who he is (say, he was an obnoxious Gryffindor), he could even be his chief rival in the fight against Voldemort (whom I would argue to be Snape, who receives in some ways similar treatment from JKR). > The conflict with Draco is definitely > not heroic, but that's OK. As far as narrative roles go, I'm quite > happy with loser!Draco. He provides action which is fun to read. > Voldemort action, on the other hand, is dark and stressful (the > parts I least like rereading are the final denouments with > Voldemort). > If Draco was too powerful, it would make the skirmishes with him too intense, which would change the balance of the books and of the plot. > Give too much power to Draco, make him successful, and you lessen the > Eloise countered: This is of course true. But the point, I think, is that this superficial rivalry *isn't* his literary function, although it is the way he is *perceived* by some, who may not be as perceptive as you. Me: I've mulled over this, and I don't seem to get your point. Are you saying that the "superficial rivalry" is not Draco's literary function? Because *I* think that the superficial rivalry is precisely Draco's role. My point was, that I am perfectly happy with this superficiality, since the real, dark struggle occurs elsewhere. Unlike Elkins, I don't find the character as it is so far unsatisfying. The conflicts with him are lighter and fun to read and I'm not sure that it can't just continue to be so. However, maybe I'm missing the point. If I am, please explain it to again, ok? :-) > So, in the context of the overall story, Draco is there, IMO, to > underline Harry's strength, both for the sheer fun of seeing him >get his but kicked, but also to prepare us for Harry's final victory over > Eloise: Do we need to be prepared by his rivalry with another student? Each book prepares us for his final victory through his confrontations with Quidemort, Sirius, the Dementors, Tom Riddle and of course, with the re-embodied Voldemort. However, the Voldemort confrontations happen only episodically. Characters like Draco and Snape (and from time to time, Ron, Hermione, various Hufflepuffs, even the whole of Gryffindor, on occasion) provide a background of character-building opposition over which our hero must rise. Me: But think about it. Harry is special enough and strong enough to overcome Voldemort, or at least be a worthy opponent to him, right? Then you can't have a *student* who seriously challenges Harry, because it will diminish Voldemort as the major evil guy, and thus diminish Harry's unique struggle with him. As I see it, Draco underlines Harry's strength because Harry overcomes him so easily. Elkins said: "And on and on it goes, throughout four entire volumes. Draco just can't do anything right. He is profoundly ineffectual, and not a one of his purported advantages actually helps him at all." But, if you assume that Draco is, in himself, competent and successful (and, on my reading, this is how JKR intends to portray him), then his ineffectuality in relation to Harry underlines Harry's peculiar, even unique, strenght and abilities (ok, and his good luck). >Apparently Bent!Eloise Yup. ;-) Naama From aromano at indiana.edu Tue May 28 14:34:46 2002 From: aromano at indiana.edu (Aja) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 09:34:46 -0500 (EST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39119 Cindy wrote: > So how can we rule out the possibility that JKR is writing these sympathetic Draco characteristics as a nod to believability rather than to generate any real sympathy in the reader? Ah, yes, but that very believability hits on something essential. Based on all the information weve seen, Draco Malfoy has had, for the most part, a normal childhood. Hes been treated well, spoiled to death his whole life, and pretty much had it easy, especially compared to Harry. If JKR were going to turn Draco Evil, she would have to have, like Tom Riddle, a compelling reason to do so. Elkins so wonderfully outlined the pitfalls of his privilege and status--yet compared to Harry, hes got nothing to complain about; and are the injustices of a teenager enough to instill the natural hatred you have to have in order to become a truly evil human being? Unlike Tom Riddle, who has been given real, compelling reasons for turning, Dracos been given a lot of humiliation and several hex marks. And unlike Peter Pettigrew, his closest MWPP-generation counterpart, hes been given a score of sympathetic detailsPeter, unless we get new extenuating information in upcoming books, has been given none. Why would JKR give us those clues at creating sympathy for Draco if she were going to later expect us to buy into his becoming Ever So Evil? Just a thought, Aja From dicentra at xmission.com Tue May 28 14:52:02 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:52:02 -0000 Subject: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR and Lestrange In-Reply-To: <72.1cf4a16e.2a23f495@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39120 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., elfundeb at a... wrote: > With many apologies to all who could not identify the context of the > following two quotes, which I inadvertently left out of a prior post. > > > > > > > Dicentra snatches the script from Debbie's hands and swipes the red > > pencil. She circles "for the third time in his life" about 30 times > > and begins jabbing at it with the pencil. > > > > "What is the meaning of this?" she demands. "When were the other two > > times? When the dementors got him? I don't think so: that's the > > sensation of horrible memories returning. Has Harry been Imperio'ed > > before, without his knowing, or were those other two times something > > else? Have these times even been mentioned?" > > > > Dicentra draws a red flag on the script and tosses it back on > > Debbie's lap. "I'm too busy to go searching through a couple thousand > > pages for this. Let some LOON get it." > > Dicentra, having gone back to GoF, realizes that the part about "third time in his life" is NOT in the scene when Moody first puts the Imperio on Harry. She curses herself for not having looked at the source before making assumptions--thinking somehow that Harry had experienced a mind-clearing BEFORE Moody first Imperio'ed him, which might indicate someone messing with Harry in the past. It looked like a red flag to her, but it was not. She looks back over at Debbie, whose startled expression has turned apologetic, and then notices one tear trickling out of her eye. She realizes that Debbie thinks the red flag is marking a violation on Debbie's part--one step further than a yellow flag. "Oh, no!" says Dicentra. "No, that's not it. That wasn't aimed at you. That was me saying 'this looks suspicious, but I can't look for the other instances and then come up with a sinister theory.'" She gives Debbie a hug and hopes she will forgive her for flagging and running. --Dicentra, who is not very bright sometimes From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Tue May 28 15:12:03 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:12:03 -0000 Subject: Mystery and Evil!Winky and Sexy!Remus (not together) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39122 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "catlady_de_los_angeles" wrote: > Pip wrote: > > Of course, if that is so, then JKR is definitely subverting the > > detective format. In detective stories, the detective is someone > > who *must* solve the case. In the Potterverse, it might be that > > 'detective' Harry is someone who *mustn't* solve it. > Catlady replied: > Subversion of the detective story format? Yawn. Not at you, or at > Harry, but at ... Agatha Christie, isn't she the one who had the > murderer be the narrator? And the recent movie Memento. Everyone > always subverts the detective story. As you say, everyone's had a go at subverting the detective format. You can have stories where the 'great detective' is an idiot, where there's no murder, where the narrator is the murderer, where the detective is the murderer, where a victim is the murderer, where *everybody* did do it - and so on. Haven't seen Memento, so I don't know if that is a format where it's essential that the 'crime' mustn't be solved. But we already *know* that JKR likes subverting formats - she's done it with the 'school story' format in PS/SS, where Harry firmly points out that 'who wins the School Cup' is seriously unimportant. And I disagree that using something 'done before' is a Yawn. Georges Polti pointed out back in 1868 that there are only 36 basic dramatic plots. The question is not whether a plot has been 'done before' (it's always been done before) but whether the writer is using it in an interesting way. JKR's certainly ahead on points there as far as I'm concerned. (Back in post #39061 I also gave my opinion that JKR is *not* writing a detective story as such, but using detective story techniques. Just as she's not writing a school story, but is using school story techniques.) Pip wrote: > > Have you considered whether a theory of 'Winky the House Elf is > > Ever So Evil' could fit into Crouch Jr impersonating Crouch Sr? > > Given that I am assuming that the whole QWC Barty escape attempt > > (which has NO coincidences if you decide it was planned/ordered by > > Voldemort and deliberately assisted by Winky) was designed by JKR > > to get Winky fired from her role as the Crouches's House Elf and > > thus 'plant' her in Hogwarts for a later book. > Catlady replied: > Granted that I am extremely gullible, I don't think you are at all. So far I haven't noticed any other posts suggesting Evil!Winky. It's extremely well hidden. And I could, of course, be completely wrong. >I don't think of Winky as Evil > or loyal to Voldemort, but rather as loyal to Barty Jr (whether that > is due House Elf tradition or to a rather unsuitable 'ship'). > > If the bad guys killed or stunned/imprisoned Barty Sr so that Barty > Jr could inpersonate him, Barty Jr would be in a position to fake > firing Winky without rigging up all that QWC stuff, Ah. You may have misunderstood me here (my apologies - I should have made it clearer). I don't think 'getting Evil!Winky into Hogwarts' is a Voldemort/Crouch Jr. plan. I think Evil!Winky would have been better placed supporting Barty as False!Crouch, and that in fact Voldemort is *seriously* pissed off that Winky got herself fired. I think getting Evil!Winky into Hogwarts is a JKR plan - and the real main purpose of the QWC - but by the end of GoF she's portraying Voldemort as becoming sufficiently un-pissed off enough to see the possibilities. Pip (Who can feel a looong post coming on about Evil!Winky (unless it has been done before) - but it may have to wait until the (UK) public holiday next week :-) ) From adatole at yahoo.com Tue May 28 16:35:14 2002 From: adatole at yahoo.com (Leon Adato) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 12:35:14 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Comparing "house-elfment" to slavery (Part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <008701c20665$a538ecb0$3d0310ac@dellcpi> No: HPFGUIDX 39123 naamagatus says: **************** It seems to me that you are begging the central question here, which is - IS the house elves connection to humans innate (i.e., natural) or is it psychological (i.e., the result of "brainwashing"). You seem to already assume the latter. **************** And you seem to assume the former. Supporting ladjables comments, I would like to point out that: NO other race, no matter how "different" (unhuman) they are, speaks in the same way as Dobby/Winky. Not even Aragog, who speaks in broken but still english but using correct verb tenses. The centaurs, who hold themselves apart from Humanit, speak perfect English. Already mentioned are the Goblins. Dwarves (as seen delivering valentines) too. I'm not sure if what we hear from snakes is valid, since it is filtered through Harry's parseltongue. But a key point to realize is that no other race is shown speaking in pidgin language, whether as a characterization (parseltongue) or literally. JKR did not make this choice lightly. Naamagagus continues: ****************** But that is a different moral issue, what is the proper way to treat a species that IS non-human and that has an innate need to serve humans? ****************** Again, what other race does this? Even the Goblins, with whom the wizards have warred in the past, fill a role in society that appears to contain elements of freedom of choice, movement, etc (ie: the banking system). The Weasley's don't enslave teh ghoul in the attic. While they are perhaps rude to the gnomes in the garden, they don't try to put them to work only to remove them as a nuisance. Name me one other race that appears on a lower rung of society! One other race that is servile to another race! The fact is that magic is the great equalizer in Harry's world - it raises up the lowly (Prof Flitwick comes to mind) and levels the playing field on people who might, based on purely physical abilities, consider themselves mighty (Hagrid). Magical ability is the coin of the realm. And the Elves have it in droves. They can apparate into/out of Hogwarts even when humans cannot. They can blast great wizards (Lucius). Without apparent education, they can perform wandless magic that rivals what the students themselves are learning. So I would argue that, based on the evidence provided within the books themselves, the status of the HouseElf is inconsistant with the rest of the HP world and begging to be addressed. If you then layer on all the information ladjables has presented, you have what I believe to be a clear message from JKR about the "right"ness or "wrong"ness of this entire subject. Leon Adato -------------- Plus nous nous elevons, plus nous paraissons petits a ceux qui ne savent pas voler. (The higher we are going, the smaller we seem to be for the people who can not fly) -F. Nietsche From lupinesque at yahoo.com Tue May 28 17:39:52 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:39:52 -0000 Subject: Remus isn't THAT nice In-Reply-To: <1a8.2dfe9e8.2a24ddbe@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39124 Pippin wrote: > > But more importantly, Remus isn't *always* kind. I really > > wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of him. He might send a > > piece of chewing gum flying up my nose Only if you'd been stuffing it in a keyhole, LOL. But yeah, even though it's only hard-to-like Peeves*, this incident does serve notice that Lupin is no one to cross. After all, for all that Peeves backs down when McGonagall or Dumbledore is involved, suggesting that they could punish him if they chose, we haven't seen anyone else actually act on his or her ability to do so--only Remus. He's probably getting even for his seven years of school during which Peeves thwarted his attempts at mischief, made him late to class, and threw out hints about his lycanthropy (I suspect Peeves knows about it and that his calling him "Loony" is not a coincidence). Pippin wrote: > > Which makes me wonder... it would be interesting, wouldn't it, if it > > turned out that Remus really was in on the you-know-what? He > > never really said that he wasn't, did he? And Snape's suspicions, > > while often overblown, are seldom all-together off the mark True. The main reason I doubt Remus was in on it was that it would have caused him so much trouble. Heaven knows what the MOM does to werewolves who kill a human. Amy Z *gauntlet rattles to the floor. Who's gonna be the first to found a Peeves Fan Club? From SaalsG at cni-usa.com Tue May 28 16:25:39 2002 From: SaalsG at cni-usa.com (Grace Saalsaa) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:25:39 -0500 Subject: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame Message-ID: <002401c20664$4ec67380$934053d1@DJF30D11> No: HPFGUIDX 39125 Eloise: Isn't this the precise point? His narrative role *appears* to be as Harry's chief rival *within Hogwarts*. If he weren't who he is (say, he was an obnoxious Gryffindor), he could even be his chief rival in the fight against Voldemort (whom I would argue to be Snape, who receives in some ways similar treatment from JKR). This is my first post to this list. I've been lurking, reading, and saying to myself: Where's my book? I don't remember reading that!" This topic of Draco Malfoy's was something I was just thinking about this morning while out for a walk with my dogs. I rather enjoy this character and am hoping that in the future books he will develop into something more interesting. Right now, I have the sense that JKR hasn't devoted much time in thinking about him. He's there as the antagonist; the irritating horsefly that buzzes in Harry's periforial vision. But Draco doesn't strike me as having aged or matured thus far. He is still acting like a little bully, seeking attention and gathering his courage from weak, thick-headed friends. My impression of Draco is that he is jealous of Harry and seeks to draw attention to himself by jeering and acting out little pantomimes when Harry is in sight. He doesn't strike me as really hating Harry. And even his hatred for Mudbloods doesn't seem to be original to him. Its a prejudice taught to him by his father whom he holds in deep respect. His father has never failed him, carries an air of authority and therefore, his father must "know." Draco hasn't thought for himself yet nor challenged himself to question why he believes what he *thinks* he believes. And his choice of friends aren't ones who will provide any insights for him either. When Harry and Ron have their fireside chat with Draco in the guise of Crabbe & Goyle, Draco shows his that is annoying side again - but there is also the level of friendship with these two, where he talks/reveals some of his heart. And even then he says "my father says...." Character development in the Slytherin House seems rather weak on the whole. And that makes me wonder why. This is the House where the Dark Art students develop. So why aren't we seeing more from them? They've won the House Cup 7 years in a row. Suddenly when Harry shows up, they dry up? In CoS, (book not in front of me) it says Draco is Snape's favorite student. And why would that be? References are made to Snape's ability to be very astute when he's reading Harry or putting a sequence of events together that leads to Harry being involved somehow. If he's that sharp, then what does he see in Draco? I doubt that Snape sees Draco as the most fantastic kid in the school - and he can't be so blindly loyal to his House that only Draco appeals to him. So what does Draco have the catches Snape attention? Grace [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From divaclv at aol.com Tue May 28 17:04:34 2002 From: divaclv at aol.com (c_voth312) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 17:04:34 -0000 Subject: Comparing "house-elfment" to slavery (Part 1) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39126 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > It seems to me that you are begging the central question here, which > is - IS the house elves connection to humans innate (i.e., natural) > or is it psychological (i.e., the result of "brainwashing"). You seem > to already assume the latter. I think you've hit upon the crux of the issue here. Frankly, I admire JKR for creating this moral dilemma. It's a given in our society that the enslavement of another race, culture, etc. is downright wrong. But if there was a culture built around servitude, whose members willingly and conciously embraced that position of being subservient to others, would it really be right to work for their freedom? I'm not saying that this is certainly the case of the house-elves; it is possible their mindset is due to some form of psychological and cultural conditioning or brainwashing. But I don't think we can rule out the chance that the desire is innate. (snip) > My main point, however, is that the problem with human enslavement, > like I said, is simply that it is enslavement. Once you posit human > slavery, you cannot meaningfuly speak of fair treatment. Fair > treatment becomes an issue, IMO, only if the basic structure of the > relationship is deemed legitimate. For instance, child abuse arises > (logically, I mean) out of the natural dependency of children on > their parents (or adults in general). The same goes for dogs. We > accept that dogs have an innate connection and need of that > connection with their owners. Otherwise, we would be protesting > against the very concept of dog ownership, wouldn't we? Since we > accept it, however, we try to provide for rules that protect the dog > from abuse by his owner. > > So, first we have to decide whether the bond of servitude between > house elves and humans is morally right, and only then (if we decide > it is) can we debate what constitutes fair treatment of elves. Agreed. I think this falls into the "wait-and-see" category. ~Christi From Edblanning at aol.com Tue May 28 17:59:04 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 13:59:04 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame Message-ID: <8f.1c9e509d.2a251f68@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39127 Naama quotes me (Eloise) quoting her: > > Just one point. Draco's unsatisfactoriness originates (if I > > understand you correctly) from his presumed role of Peer Rival to > > Harry, right? > > Well, I'm not sure that I agree that that is exactly his narrative > > role. I mean, yes, of course it is - he is a peer and a rival of > > Harry. The thing is, Draco is not Harry's true rival (arch enemy). > > The true rival is Voldemort, and in facing him, Harry is truly > > > > Eloise: > > Isn't this the precise point? > His narrative role *appears* to be as Harry's chief rival *within > Hogwarts*. > If he weren't who he is (say, he was an obnoxious Gryffindor), he > could even be his chief rival in the fight against Voldemort (whom I > would argue to be Snape, who receives in some ways similar treatment > from JKR). > > > > The conflict with Draco is definitely > > not heroic, but that's OK. As far as narrative roles go, I'm quite > > happy with loser!Draco. He provides action which is fun to read. > > Voldemort action, on the other hand, is dark and stressful (the > > parts I least like rereading are the final denouments with > > Voldemort). > > If Draco was too powerful, it would make the skirmishes with him > too intense, which would change the balance of the books and of the > plot. > > Give too much power to Draco, make him successful, and you lessen > the > > > > Eloise countered: > > This is of course true. But the point, I think, is that this > superficial rivalry *isn't* his literary function, although it is the > way he is *perceived* by some, who may not be as perceptive as you. > > > Me: (Naama) > > I've mulled over this, and I don't seem to get your point. > Are you saying that the "superficial rivalry" is not Draco's literary > function? Because *I* think that the superficial rivalry is precisely > Draco's role. My point was, that I am perfectly happy with this > superficiality, since the real, dark struggle occurs elsewhere. > Unlike Elkins, I don't find the character as it is so far > unsatisfying. The conflicts with him are lighter and fun to read and > I'm not sure that it can't just continue to be so. > However, maybe I'm missing the point. If I am, please explain it to > OK. I think it's the word 'superficial' that's ambiguous. I meant that superficially, most of the time, in between Voldemort encounters, he appears to be the rival. That appears to be his function, but I suspect that Elkins may be correct in her theory that he will turn out to have a different one. If you like there are two stories playing simultaneously, a school story and the bigger Good vs Evil (for the purposes of this argument, before anyone reminds me I don't like that dichotomy) story. I think it is valid to argue that on the school story level, Draco could be a stronger rival, without detracting from the overarching Good vs Evil plot line. If that is his function. > > > > So, in the context of the overall story, Draco is there, IMO, to > > underline Harry's strength, both for the sheer fun of seeing him > >get his but kicked, but also to prepare us for Harry's final victory > over > > > > Eloise: > > Do we need to be prepared by his rivalry with another student? Each > book prepares us for his final victory through his confrontations > with Quidemort, Sirius, the Dementors, Tom Riddle and of course, with > the re-embodied Voldemort. > > However, the Voldemort confrontations happen only episodically. > Characters like Draco and Snape (and from time to time, Ron, > Hermione, various Hufflepuffs, even the whole of Gryffindor, on > occasion) provide a background of character-building opposition over > which our hero must rise. > > > Me: > > But think about it. Harry is special enough and strong enough to > overcome Voldemort, or at least be a worthy opponent to him, right? > Then you can't have a *student* who seriously challenges Harry, > because it will diminish Voldemort as the major evil guy, and thus > diminish Harry's unique struggle with him. As I see it, Draco > That is a very good point! However, if he weren't such a loser, if he *were* providing some credible opposition to Harry and Harry were *still* overcoming him, then he would underline Harry's strength even more. Draco would have a long way to go before challenging Voldemort as the majot evil guy. Although now you come to mention it, Voldemort is such a loser himself..........Mmm....perhaps it wouldn't take all that much! > > Elkins said: > "And on and on it goes, throughout four entire volumes. Draco just > can't do anything right. He is profoundly ineffectual, and not a one > of his purported advantages actually helps him at all." > > But, if you assume that Draco is, in himself, competent and > successful (and, on my reading, this is how JKR intends to portray > him), then his ineffectuality in relation to Harry underlines Harry's > peculiar, even unique, strenght and abilities (ok, and his good > But I don't really see that competence or success, I'm afraid. If that is how JKR *intends* to portray him, I don't think she's succeeded. > > > > >Apparently Bent!Eloise > > Yup. ;-) > I asked for that one! ;-) I would of course prefer to see it as having a mature and integrated personality. ;-) Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Tue May 28 18:44:45 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 14:44:45 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Murder spree Message-ID: <127.11701997.2a252a1d@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39128 James writes: No: HPFGUIDX 39129 In a message dated 5/27/2002 11:30:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, cindysphynx at comcast.net writes: << But, I fear, I'm not seeing Redeemable!Draco. I think JKR is writing Draco as a flat cariacature with no redeeming characteristics at all at the moment. That's how I see him, anyway. >> While I am one of the people on the Redeemable!Draco kick, I am open to other ideas, and I see how Draco could be Lame!Draco and Evil!Draco and so on....but I have to disagree that he's a flat, 2-dimensional character. I'm not criticizing you, I'm just saying what I see - I find it hard to accept that Draco will remain in his current 2-D state, because I believe there needs to be another character for conflict and ineteraction that doesn't get along with the Trio, but itsn't part of the adult Death Eater band. While I have to admit that so far Draco has been, well, kinda lame, I think that in future books he'll have a bigger part to play. He might bit be redeemed, but hopefully he'll be mre of a 3-Dimensional character. *Chelsea* From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Tue May 28 19:04:31 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 15:04:31 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Remus isn't THAT nice Message-ID: <17c.8f717af.2a252ebf@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39130 In a message dated 5/27/2002 10:24:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, foxmoth at qnet.com writes: << First of all Remus is dangerous. There's no telling when he will forget to take his potion, except for the narrative certainty that it will be at absolutely the wrong time. But more importantly, Remus isn't *always* kind. I really wouldn't want to get on the wrong side of him. He might send a piece of chewing gum flying up my nose or humiliate me Snape-boggart fashion. Which makes me wonder... it would be interesting, wouldn't it, if it turned out that Remus really was in on the you-know-what? He never really said that he wasn't, did he? And Snape's suspicions, while often overblown, are seldom all-together off the mark either. Pippin >> Yes, Remus is dangerous in wolf form, but I've always pictured him as very intelligent and friendly and kind. True, he was acted a bit stupid during his school years when he and the MWPP group snuck off while he was in werewolf form, but can you reealy blame him? It was stupid and someone could've gotten hurt, but he wanted to be normal so badly, and he took the precautions and had James and Sirius transform inro large animals to keep in him check. And I always thought that Remus was very kind. Yea, he shot a piece of gum up Peeve's nostril, but c'mon! He's an annoying POLTERGEIST and it wouldn't of hurt him. Annoyed him? Yes. Hurt him? No. And I dont understand the Humiliate Me With A Boggart Idea, unless you're referring to the Grandmother!Snape incident, which he used in order to make Neville feel secure and able. It would be a great twist if Remus was in league with V (imagaining Sirius slapping his head and saying "you WERE a spy!") But I just can't picture it. Instances such as when Harry was telling him how he could hear his parents dying, and Remus makes a move to hold his shoulder, seem to prove to me that he cared deeply for his friends, and isn't a bad guy. *Chelsea* From fawkes at wizardingwireless.net Tue May 28 18:08:24 2002 From: fawkes at wizardingwireless.net (Dave Haber) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 11:08:24 -0700 Subject: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame References: <002401c20664$4ec67380$934053d1@DJF30D11> Message-ID: <001901c20672$ac0b8630$800210ac@sm.edmundscorp.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39131 This is my first post. I hope what I'm saying is not obvious. Grace Saalsaa said: >In CoS, (book not in front of me) it says Draco is Snape's >favorite student. And why would that be? References are >made to Snape's ability to be very astute when he's reading >Harry or putting a sequence of events together that leads to >Harry being involved somehow. If he's that sharp, then what >does he see in Draco? I doubt that Snape sees Draco as the >most fantastic kid in the school - and he can't be so blindly >loyal to his House that only Draco appeals to him. So what >does Draco have the catches Snape attention? We know that Professor Snape is a spy against the Dark side for our side. I think it's possible that Professor Snape makes it publicly known that Draco is "his favorite student" for the purpose of ingratiating himself with Draco's father, whom we know is a Death Eater. -Dave Haber fawkes at wizardingwireless.net -------------------------------------------------------------------- fawkes at wizardingwireless.net - Dave Haber -------------------------------------------------------------------- Harry Potter for Programmers - www.wizardingwireless.net -------------------------------------------------------------------- [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Tue May 28 21:08:07 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 21:08:07 -0000 Subject: Stunning Harry (WAS Coherence II) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39132 Caroline strolls along the deck of the Big Bang Destroyer, looking for Laura. She spies her sunning happily, plugged into her Walkman. "Laura!" No response. "LAURA!" Laura jumps, then relaxes when she recognizes Caroline. Truth be told, everyone's a little on edge these days, after Cindy's... incident... with Elkins. "Hey, Laura, still listening to CoS? You know, that part you mentioned last week?" Laura nods, unplugging the headphones from the Walkman. At once, the deck is filled with the sounds of Jim Dale, reading Chapter 11, the Duelling Club: "Harry swung his wand high, but Malfoy had already started on `two': His spell hit Harry so hard, he felt as though he had been hit over the head with a saucepan. He stumbled but everything still seemed to be working, and wasting no more time, Harry pointed his wand at Malfoy..." "Oh, yeah," Laura says, stopping the tape, "and I wondered just what this spell might be, and why it didn't work..." "Well," says Caroline confidentially, "you know what that Faith would say. She'd say that it was authorial discretion, you know, that authors don't have to give complete details *all* the time." "Yeah..." replies Laura, a bit despondently. "But me," Caroline adds, "I always feel more at home in the company of hedgehogs. And they think that this might be Significant. After all, JKR's details are rarely extraneous, right?" "Exactly!" "Well, what about the stunning spell? I imagine it might feel *a lot* like getting hit on the head with a saucepan." "Maybe..." Laura says slowly. "But Harry doesn't learn about it til fourth year!" Caroline nods happily. "Precisely my point. JKR didn't use the name for it in CoS, just like she didn't mention the word Parseltongue in SS. But our Harry can still have an unusual magical reaction without us knowing the name for it yet, right?" Laura nods her head in silent agreement. "And we agree that Draco may know more curses than the 12-year-old Harry, right?" Laura nods again. "And think about this. Has anyone ever successfully stunned our Harry? I mean, those DE's in the graveyard were kind of pitiful when they tried to do that." "Hmm... interesting..." "And another thing," adds Caroline, very excited now. "Supposedly Harry blocked the AK curse when he was just a baby. *I* think this maybe has something to do with his Stonedness. You know, along with dormant immortality, Harry may have a dormant curse shield that works when he really needs it." "But the typical schoolboy curses seem to work just fine!" Laura exclaims. "True, true," Caroline replies. "But you know, they're kind of *weak*, aren't they? I mean, why would his natural shield need to spring into action for those? No, Harry can handle those on his own." "That would help explain why Dumbledore lets him take so many risks..." Laura replies thoughtfully. "And it might get Harry out of a jam one day..." Caroline summons up an armchair and a couple of margaritas. "Right. And, an unusual reaction to Stupefy might have made Snape curious during that dueling scene. Curious enough to see what *other* powers Harry was hiding. Curious enough to have Draco conjure up that snake." Laura and Caroline sip their margaritas contemplatively, watching a young boy chase fish out among the waves. ******************* For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth eticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From naama_gat at hotmail.com Tue May 28 21:28:14 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 21:28:14 -0000 Subject: Comparing "house-elfment" to slavery (Part 1) In-Reply-To: <008701c20665$a538ecb0$3d0310ac@dellcpi> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39133 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Leon Adato" wrote: > Supporting ladjables comments, I > would like to point out that: > > NO other race, no matter how "different" (unhuman) they are, speaks > in the same way as Dobby/Winky. Not even Aragog, who speaks in > broken but still > english but using correct verb tenses. The centaurs, who hold themselves > apart from Humanit, speak perfect English. Already mentioned are the > Goblins. Dwarves (as seen delivering valentines) too. I'm not sure if what > we hear from snakes is valid, since it is filtered through Harry's > parseltongue. > > But a key point to realize is that no other race is shown speaking > in pidgin language, whether as a characterization (parseltongue) or > literally. JKR did not make this choice lightly. I agree with you and with ladjables that pidgin marks servility. However, there is no question that the house elves are in a position of servitude that is unique to them. Possibly JKR is using this characterization to signal the metaphor of slavery. Maybe not, though. You think that JKR made this choice consciously. How many of her target audience does she think will get the message? How many of the children reading the books are familiar with the term "pidgin"? Let alone connecting the pidgin with slavery. JKR has already addressed the socio-political issue of racism, prejudice and intolerance. When she did, there was no ambiguity about it at all. "Mudbloods" does not exactly lend itself to many interpretations, does it? It's obviously a racial slur. So, why would she, when addressing a very similar issue (as you claim), take such a different path? Why use hints and subtle allusions rather than the forthright attitude she demonstrated before? One possible answer is, because "house-elfement" IS ambigous. Not that it is merely treated this way, but that it actually is so. > > Naamagagus continues: > ****************** > But that is a different moral issue, what is the proper way to > treat a species that IS non-human and that has an innate need to > > serve humans? > ****************** > > Again, what other race does this? Even the Goblins, with whom the wizards have warred in the past, fill a role in society that appears to contain elements of freedom of choice, movement, etc (ie: the banking system). The Weasley's don't enslave the ghoul in the attic. While they are perhaps rude to the gnomes in the garden, they don't try to put them to work only to remove them as a nuisance. Name me one other race that appears on a lower rung of society! One > other race that is servile to another race! > So I would argue that, based on the evidence provided within the books themselves, the status of the HouseElf is inconsistant with the rest of the HP world and begging to be addressed. If you then layer on all the information ladjables has presented, you have what I believe to be a clear message from JKR about the "right"ness or "wrong"ness of this entire subject. > The house elves are probably too efficient to make necessary the enslavement of another species. Seriously, though, isn't one servile species enough? All the other species are portrayed as inherently different from humans. Both in regard to physical appearance, magical abilities and other innate tendencies. I don't see why it is inconsistent with the HP world to posit one magical species that has the unique innate tendency to serve humans. I'm not saying it's not problematic, mind. But I don't think there is any inconsistency involved. Naama From cindysphynx at comcast.net Tue May 28 22:11:52 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:11:52 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stunning!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39134 The Captain paced the deck of the Big Bang Destroyer, wondering why it is that none of the crew is willing to do any actual *work* around the place. Oh, there was lots of lying about in skimpy swimsuits, a certain willingness to sip pricey blended drinks, plenty of hogging all the cheese on the nachos, but no one was even *trying* to Bang. The Captain was getting *tired* of doing all the Banging on the Destroyer. But then Caroline approached. Caroline, who earned her keep by devising Stoned!Harry and demonstrating her considerable mastery of alchemy. Caroline called urgently to the Captain, something about a new theory. The Captain stalked over to the snack bar to confront Caroline and Laura, neither of whom appeared to be cooking anything or cleaning anything. "What's it going to take to get you ladies to pull your weight around here, huh?" the Captain snarled. "I've reached the point where I'm reduced to *Humpty Dumptying the Bangs* for cryin' out loud, and I've had just about enough!" Laura gulped audibly, but Caroline stepped forward and addressed the Captain directly. "It's . . . it's Laura, Captain. She has been listening to Harry Potter again, and she's given me an idea. I think that Harry might have some sort of natural protection against curses. Listen to this bit of CoS:" >"Harry swung his wand high, but Malfoy had already started on >`two': His spell hit Harry so hard, he felt as though he had been >hit over the head with a saucepan. He stumbled but everything still >seemed to be working, and wasting no more time, Harry pointed his >wand at Malfoy..." "And think about this," Caroline continued. "Has anyone ever successfully stunned our Harry? I mean, those DE's in the graveyard were kind of pitiful when they tried to do that." Laura nodded vigorously, her eyes wide. Caroline went on, her voice rising above the sound of the Big Bang's Huge engines. "You know, along with dormant immortality, Harry may have a dormant curse shield that works when he really needs it." The Captain considered, stroking her chin thoughtfully. "That's not half bad, Caroline. Not bad at all. You've got some good canon there. I especially like the way you've moved us away from the Ever So Lame 'Harry was saved by his mother's love' bit. That's twice you've done that. Nice work." The Captain seized the nearest margarita and sucked the staw vigorously, making a hollow, slurping sound. "There is one other small canon you might wish to add to your SHIP, should you choose to launch it. For some unexplained reason, Harry has trouble with his Shield Charm. That's really odd, isn't it? Here we are at the end of a tremendously long book. Why is JKR going on about Shield Charms at the end of GoF, anyway? Harry never masters it or tries to use it in the tasks or graveyard. No one has ever used or mentioned a Shield Charm before. So why even introduce the concept?" Laura and Caroline stared at the Captain, speechless. Laura clutched her own margarita to her breast. "Could it be," continued the Captain, "that the reason JKR introduces the idea of a Shield Charm (and the reason Harry can't get it to work) is that Harry already has a shield? So attempting an ordinary Shield Charm won't work because he already *has* a shield? It's *redundant*, don't you know?" "Redundant? Redundant magic?" Laura ventured. "That's right," said the Captain. "Have we seen anything in canon whereby a character accomplishes anything useful by layering a spell on top of another spell? Nothing comes to mind, does it? So if you already have a natural magical shield, and you try to work a Shield Charm, you'll fail every time, won't you?" "Nice Banging, Caroline." The Captain handed the margarita back to Caroline, who examined the straw closely but did not sip from it. "Very nice indeed!" *********** Cindy (thinking Stunning!Harry is probably rather fetching) ******************* For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth eticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue May 28 23:06:03 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 23:06:03 -0000 Subject: Peeves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39135 Amy wrote: > > *gauntlet rattles to the floor. Who's gonna be the first to found a Peeves Fan Club? That would be me. Except I don't join clubs or found them. Or wear badges. Or any of that tat. But, anyway, Peeves. He's obviously an important character, isn't he? He's Dumbledore's foil. He has the same sense of humour and dress sense as Dumbledore, only less generous. He is Dumbledore's mischievous impulses untempered by his wisdom and sense of responsibility. When Fleur criticises Hogwarts for having a poltergeist, she misses the point, IMO. Peeves is a necessary presence to keep Dumbledore on the right path: he is the recoil from Dumbledore's acts of goodness, preserving a sort of moral law of conservation of momentum. A catharsis for the strain of being unrelentingly good. While Snape holds his nastiness close, and Sirius switches in and out of his, and Lupin slides his in gently like quinine in lemonade, Dumbledore holds his in an eccentric orbit, moving through space apparently of its own volition, yet ultimately bound to his gravitational pull. That do, Amy? David From huntleyl at mssm.org Tue May 28 23:40:36 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Huntley) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 19:40:36 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY?: Stunning Harry (WAS Coherence II) References: Message-ID: <006901c206a1$10f22080$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 39136 Laura sits on the deck of the Big Bang Destroyer with her chin propped up on her knees, contemplating her earlier conversation with Caroline. Nearby Stoned!Harry has caught a fish and is gleefully trying to chew off its tail. Suddenly, Laura jumps to her feet, and - swaying a little from all the margaritas - approaches the side of the ship. "Harry!" She calls, leaning over the side. "Harry!" The boy looks up towards her with decidedly glazed eyes, then wanders near the Big Bang, dropping his fish into the windswept surf. "What do you think? Stunning spell?" She asks, but Stoned!Harry merely smiles coyly up at her. "Of course, it could have been anything, you know. Like.. um." She trails off as Caroline approaches with a large fluffy blanket and a copy of the Daily Prophet tucked under her arm. "But what else would have given him the sensation of getting hit over the head? The Stunning Spell makes perfect sense!" Caroline argues as she spreads out her towel and sits down on it. There is a pause in the conversation as Harry gazes curiously into the water beneath his feet and Laura scowls at the horizon, lost in thought. "But...it doesn't really make sense that Harry would have a special protection against the Stunning Spell due to his Stoned! status, does it? I mean, what has one really got to do with the other?" She says, slowly. Harry is now peering into the depths of Theory Bay with a great deal of concern on his face. "Well.." Starts Caroline uncertainly, but at that moment there is a great deal of commotion in the water beside the Big Bang as something Styrofoam and oddly shaped bursts out of the Bay - just missing Stoned!Harry - and flies several feet into the air before splashing down beside the Destroyer. Harry stands dumbstruck to beside it, looking quite traumatized. Caroline and Laura, having instinctively hit the deck as thing exploded from the water, peak cautiously over the side of the Destroyer. Recognizing the shape of the object, Caroline gets up, looking smug. "See? I have a can(n)on to back me up! The Death Eaters in the graveyard couldn't Stun Harry!" She exclaims. Laura is not completely convinced yet, however. "I don't know, " She says, eyeing the styrafoam can(n)on as it bobs innocently on the waves, "It doesn't look very solid to me -- I mean, they could have just been really bad shots." Caroline raises an eyebrow at her, smiling. Laura bites her lip. On the water below, Harry pokes the can(n)on gingerly, looking suspicious. "Oh," Laura says finally, with a sigh, "You're right. It is a pretty big coincidence." Harry, obviously feeling more confident, aims a kick at Caroline's new can(n)on. "Hey!" the Captain shouts suddenly, "Don't touch that!" Harry jumps, looks up at her reproachfully, then stalks off across the waves. Caroline and Laura watch him go, looking contemplative. "I wonder what else that boy can do," Laura muses, as Caroline settles down on her blanket and opens up the Daily Prophet. "Hey, mind giving me the crossword, Caroline?" At that moment, however, Captain Cindy stalks across the deck toward them, looking murderous. >"What's it going to take to get you ladies to pull your weight >around here, huh?" the Captain snarled. "I've reached the point >where I'm reduced to *Humpty Dumptying the Bangs* for cryin' out >loud, and I've had just about enough!" >Laura gulped audibly, but Caroline stepped forward and addressed the >Captain directly. >"It's . . . it's Laura, Captain. She has been listening to Harry >Potter again, and she's given me an idea. I think that Harry might >have some sort of natural protection against curses. Listen to this >bit of CoS:" >"Harry swung his wand high, but Malfoy had already started on >`two': His spell hit Harry so hard, he felt as though he had been >hit over the head with a saucepan. He stumbled but everything still >seemed to be working, and wasting no more time, Harry pointed his >wand at Malfoy..." >"And think about this," Caroline continued. "Has anyone ever >successfully stunned our Harry? I mean, those DE's in the graveyard >were kind of pitiful when they tried to do that." >Laura nodded vigorously, her eyes wide. >Caroline went on, her voice rising above the sound of the Big Bang's >Huge engines. "You know, along with dormant immortality, Harry may >have a dormant curse shield that works when he really needs it." >The Captain considered, stroking her chin thoughtfully. "That's not >half bad, Caroline. Not bad at all. You've got some good canon >there. I especially like the way you've moved us away from the Ever >So Lame 'Harry was saved by his mother's love' bit. That's twice >you've done that. Nice work." >The Captain seized the nearest margarita and sucked the staw >vigorously, making a hollow, slurping sound. "There is one other >small canon you might wish to add to your SHIP, should you choose to >launch it. For some unexplained reason, Harry has trouble with his >Shield Charm. That's really odd, isn't it? Here we are at the end >of a tremendously long book. Why is JKR going on about Shield >Charms at the end of GoF, anyway? Harry never masters it or tries >to use it in the tasks or graveyard. No one has ever used or >mentioned a Shield Charm before. So why even introduce the concept?" >Laura and Caroline stared at the Captain, speechless. Laura >clutched her own margarita to her breast. >"Could it be," continued the Captain, "that the reason JKR >introduces the idea of a Shield Charm (and the reason Harry can't >get it to work) is that Harry already has a shield? So attempting >an ordinary Shield Charm won't work because he already *has* a >shield? It's *redundant*, don't you know?" >"Redundant? Redundant magic?" Laura ventured. >"That's right," said the Captain. "Have we seen anything in canon >whereby a character accomplishes anything useful by layering a spell >on top of another spell? Nothing comes to mind, does it? So if you >already have a natural magical shield, and you try to work a Shield >Charm, you'll fail every time, won't you?" >"Nice Banging, Caroline." The Captain handed the margarita back to >Caroline, who examined the straw closely but did not sip from >it. "Very nice indeed!" The Captain walks away to go harass a group of shipmates playing a rather unproductive game of Exploding Snap, while Laura eyes the water beside the Big Bang, expecting the can(n)on that Captain Cindy mentioned to come bursting out of the surf at any moment. "Say, Caroline," She says, after a moment, "Captain Cindy has a very interesting point there. As we all know, Jo never mentions anything just for the fun of it. I mean -- the parseltounge thing is an excellent example. Who would have thought in PS/SS that Harry's ability to talk to snakes would come to be such an important part of CoS? It makes you wonder, too..about the other things Harry did before he was a wizard. Especially the part where he re-grew his hair. Would that be considered transfiguration -- or something else? Say, regeneration?" Caroline's eyes grow wide, "And...regeneration is only a couple steps away from resurrection!" "Exactly!" exclaims Laura, looking triumphant. "If Harry can regenerate one bit of himself, who's to say that he can regenerate his entire body?! Ha! Another can(n)on!!" Caroline looks impressed, and a little scared. "You know, Laura...I mean to say -- with all these can(n)ons we're collecting..." Both she and Laura throw dubious glances at Captain Cindy who is busy assigning the Exploding Snap players to more lucrative tasks. Laura finishes her margarita in one large swig and then gazes out to sea, where Stoned!Harry is once more frolicking with the fishes. "He is really is quite seductive, you know," She murmurs absentmindedly, "No wonder we've gotten so many shipmates in such a short span of time." laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Tue May 28 23:42:50 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 23:42:50 -0000 Subject: Official Philip Nel Question #9: House Elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39137 Gwendolyn Grace wrote: >So without further ado, Dr. Nel's actual questions: > > 1. Jonathan Levi said that GoF was "the first children's book to > endorse slavery since Little Black Sambo." Do the Potter novels > endorse the house-elves' enslavement? Consider the positions on elf > rights taken by Ron, George, Mr. Weasley, Dobby, Winky, Hermione, > Sirius Black and Harry. With whom are our sympathies supposed to > lie? This is harder than at first appears, as all these characters are to some extent sympathetic. Furthermore, those with whom it's easiest to sympathise on the House-elf issue (Sirius and Arthur Weasley) are easiest precisely because we know so little of what they actually believe, beyond the vaguest of generalities. It is difficult to sympathise with George, not because his position is inherently unsympathetic, but because the arguments he uses have such a history for us. However innocent he may be, he comes off as the mouthpiece of all those arguments from nature down the centuries. We are supposed to sympathise with Winky, but not to agree with her. Her inability to see the Crouches for what they are is a crucial clue to her lack of judgement. Again, I believe we are supposed to sympathise with Hermione (the most difficult case), while cringeing at her methods. The signals for sympathy are that in similar issues (werewolves, giants) the narrative outcomes vindicate her. The cringe comes from the realisation that she alienates Dobby, whom one would suppose her natural ally. One other character worth mentioning is Dumbledore. His position, given his general standing in the series, would be expected to be authoritative. The fact that he offers Winky salary and holiday, although she sees that as shameful, is to me one of the clearest indications that JKR's intention (it is OK to think one knows what that is, yes?) is to present the HE as standing for an aspect of humanity, not as a distinct species with radically different needs. In other words, we are going to have it confirmed that House Elf Slavery Is Wrong. (BTW, I think this applies to other beings such as centaurs and giants: they will turn out to be human in essence. With giants we have virtually been told that. It could be argued that the alien and unreconcilable Dementors are the most human of all, though I cheat to arrive at that conclusion by paying attention to JKR's extra-canonical utterances. So hit me with a paddle.) > > 2. If the HP novels endorse subjugation of the house elves, do they > endorse enslavement? Or should we instead see Rowling as recognizing > the limitations of social reform? Are we supposed to be outraged or > sympathetic to George Weasley's statement that the house elves are > happy (GoF, pg 211)? A related point: Hermione says that the house > elves have been brainwashed into accepting their jobs. Should we > agree with her? Do we see the means through which the elves are > brainwashed? I will only address the question of brainwashing. I have mentioned before that there is a sharp distinction between the Dobby of COS and the elves, including Winky, of GOF. The latter *do* seem brainwashed. Dobby most definitely does not. If freedom is essentially an inner state of mind then Dobby is most definitely free right from the beginning of COS. He is carrying out acts in direct opposition to his master's plan. He knows what his masters are. He is able to choose what side he is on. He is able to express his gratitude to Harry for something that he has not, in fact, benefited from. He is able to use his powerful magic in furtherance of his ends. How is he not free? Furthermore, he describes the condition of house-elves in a way that leads the reader to believe that all are like him. In particular, he mentions that the owners of elves *in general* are very careful not to give clothes to their elves. The implication of this is that the magical element is sufficiently important that both sides must obey it. The natural reading of his words is that if, say Mr Crouch had inadvertently given Winky a sock to hold, the would *both* have had to accept that she was now free, *whether they liked it or not*. I think probably the explanation is that (as somebody pointed out in connection with Neville's memory) a magical condition, as described by Dobby, is being used as a metaphor for a psychological one, as observed by the trio in GOF. With JKR we seem to get both the symbol and the thing symbolised together, sometimes to our slight confusion as we are left with two valid explanations occupying the same intellectual space. > > The central debate seems to center around one question > of interpretation: Are the house-elves meant to be taken as literal > beings, or are they meant to represent a metaphor for something? Another way of looking at the debate is to ask not what it is possible that House-Elves *might* be, but what it is probable that they are intended to be. So, not what could JKR mean, but where is JKR going. David From usergoogol at yahoo.com Tue May 28 22:47:02 2002 From: usergoogol at yahoo.com (usergoogol) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:47:02 -0000 Subject: Voldemort and Quirrel (Short) In-Reply-To: <20020528140609.6742.qmail@web11104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39138 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Maria wrote: > Now, i also have a question regarding Quirrel. I don't have the book > with me, but i remember that Harry notices that Quirrell is wearing a > strange turban once at Hogwarts. Also, at the end of PS, Quirrel is > telling Harry how his Master was most displeased when he failed to > steal the stone in Gringotts, and how he had to get a closer watch on > him, or something like that. Does this mean that when Harry meets > Quirrel at the Leaky Cauldron Voldemort is not yet sharing Quirrel's > body? Any thoughts on this? ------------ Personally, I think it is reasonable to assume this. Why? Primarily because, IIRC, Quirrel very nervously shakes Harry's hand. If Voldemort had been inside Quirrel at that time, he would have been unable to touch Harry's hand. ~User "Random Quote" Googol~ From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Wed May 29 01:19:45 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 01:19:45 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stunning!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39139 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > "Could it be," continued the Captain, "that the reason JKR > introduces the idea of a Shield Charm (and the reason Harry can't > get it to work) is that Harry already has a shield? So attempting > an ordinary Shield Charm won't work because he already *has* a > shield? It's *redundant*, don't you know?" If Harry has a shield, I think he should send it back to the manufacturers with an angry letter and make them fix it so that it works against Cruciatus. Otherwise the thing becomes pretty darn useless. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Wed May 29 01:19:01 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (LD) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 02:19:01 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Peeves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c206ae$d1521990$4cec6bd5@quack> No: HPFGUIDX 39140 David wrote: >He's obviously an important character, isn't he? He's Dumbledore's >foil. He has the same sense of humour and dress sense as Dumbledore, >only less generous. He is Dumbledore's mischievous impulses >untempered by his wisdom and sense of responsibility. **snip** >he is the recoil from Dumbledore's acts of goodness, >preserving a sort of moral law of conservation of momentum. A >catharsis for the strain of being unrelentingly good. > >While Snape holds his nastiness close, and Sirius switches in and out >of his, and Lupin slides his in gently like quinine in lemonade, >Dumbledore holds his in an eccentric orbit, moving through space >apparently of its own volition, yet ultimately bound to his >gravitational pull. The way that I'm interpreting what you've said there is that Dumbledore and Peeves are one and the same... Yeah, I know I'm crazy but its still an interesting idea, right? Right? I see it as Peeves being a kind of physical manifestation of Dumbledore's inner child or something, the Dumbledore that wants to play tricks, sing rude songs and cause playful mayhem all over the shop. It fits in with what our muggle science has to say about poltergeists too: that they're caused by the victim's stress levels or hyperactivity or something, I'm too lazy to go find a proper quote right now. Maybe that's why Peeves isn't thought of as a true ghost by the others, because he's not in fact dead - he's very much alive and well! Hopefully this hasn't been said before, and I'm not just retreading old ground :) -LD From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Wed May 29 02:08:25 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (LD) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 03:08:25 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stunning!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c206b5$b7d14e30$2ce46bd5@quack> No: HPFGUIDX 39141 Cindysphynx wrote: > "Could it be," continued the Captain, "that the reason JKR > introduces the idea of a Shield Charm (and the reason Harry can't > get it to work) is that Harry already has a shield? So attempting > an ordinary Shield Charm won't work because he already *has* a > shield? It's *redundant*, don't you know?" To which Marina replied: >If Harry has a shield, I think he should send it back to the >manufacturers with an angry letter and make them fix it so that it >works against Cruciatus. Otherwise the thing becomes pretty darn >useless. > >Marina Well, perhaps it only works against the physical 'blast of magic' type of attacks? Cruciatus seems to work on the mind, where Harry's mental resiliance and strong will is meant to help him get through it (like it does with Imperius for example, where Harry is able to throw it off). Thinking in that way, the spells that are likely to be deflected are ones like Stupify and Avada Kedavra, both of which seem to fire blasts of energy at the target. What I want to know is how did he get this strange shield in the first place? Was it the whole "mothers love" thing, or is it a special property of his mothers' emerald green eyes that JKR seems so keen on reminding us that Harry has? *considers taking a trip to Theory Bay to find some more canon to back this up* -LD From chynarose8 at hotmail.com Wed May 29 02:36:05 2002 From: chynarose8 at hotmail.com (Michelle Strauss) Date: Tue, 28 May 2002 22:36:05 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Peeves Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39142 David wrote: >> He's Dumbledore's foil. He has the same sense of humour and dress sense as Dumbledore, only less generous. He is Dumbledore's mischievous impulses untempered by his wisdom and sense of responsibility.<< Intersting theory you've got there on the nature of poltergeists. And I think it could work. After all, we've certainly seen evidence that mental ideas can take a non-coporal form (thoughts in the pensive). I wonder if Peevees and the pensive were ever meant to be connected though. @---<-- Chyna Rose _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From pollux46 at hotmail.com Wed May 29 07:05:57 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 07:05:57 -0000 Subject: TBAY: MACHINGARMCHAIR Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39143 >As she turns toward the Parallel Universe Fourth Man hovercraft, however, >Debbie sees a new raft heading for shore, with the letters MATCHINGARMCHAIR >emblazoned on the side. LOLLIPOPS can be seen in the distance and makes a note to herself to request >an acronym for Memory Charm'd Frank one of these days> It's Eileen, with Avery in tow, waving a new defense for Cindy's Memory Potion: > >> "Be that as it may, there's a very simple reason why Harry reacted >> worse than Neville, and it fits perfectly within the logic of the >> Reverse Memory Charm or, as we must now call it, the Reverse Memory >> Potion theory. Dementors make one relive one's worst moments. Harry, >> having completely forgotten his parents' murder, does very badly >> against the Dementors. But, what if, as MATCHINGARMCHAIR claims, >> Neville is already reliving his parents' torture. If one regularly >> hears Cruciatus screams already, wouldn't have one learned to cope >> with them to some extent? Once Harry begins to cope more, he can face >> the dementors much better. Boggart-dementors have all the emotional >> and psychological effects of real dementors (as demonstrated in POA), >> yet Harry is able to deal with that Boggart-dementor in GoF quite >> handily. Neville does o.k. in the train, because he's an old hand at >> the reliving-your-worst-memories game." >> > >Debbie smiles. Debbie has been waiting patiently for days for someone to >raise this argument. It's a very clever argument. After all, Debbie thought >of it herself (one must always evaluate a theory from all sides, yes?). So >she will let Eileen down gently. "This argument doesn't work. Why? It doesn't take the egg into >account. Because one cannot simultaneously argue that Neville can't be had by the >Dementors because he has a grip on his worst memories *and* at the same time >argue that Neville could reasonably think the egg sounded like the Cruciatus >curse. If he's in touch with those memories, he *knows* what Cruciatus >sounds like. It sounds like his parents screaming in horror. It does not >sound like this." plays it backwards at 2000 rpm> Just then a rush of sound-- a plop followed by desperate scrambling and panting-- make Debbie turn around. Charis Julia has suddenly made a spectacular leap from high up on the deck of the Fourth Man Hovercraft and fallen splayed out frog fashion right next to her. She'd been spying on Debbie's little conversation with Eileen. And no, she's not ashamed of it. Recovering herself quickly she firmly jams her fingers deep into her ears and then, hardly waiting to catch her breath, she once again hurls herself forward clearly aiming for the CD--Player. One well?aimed kick sends it whizzing through the air, till, Splash! It hits the waves of Theory Bay with an almighty upheaval of water and then proceeds to sink slowly to the seabed. Silence settles once more on the Bay. Oh, phew. Heaving a huge sigh of relief Charis then turns to face the seriously disgruntled Debbie. "Err, oh no. Was that yours? Oops. . . I'll, err, buy you a new one?" But Debbie is drumming her fingers threateningly on the hand?rail. "Forget about the CD?Player! That's not the * point*." she roars throwing her hands up in the air. "What you've just gone and drowned there was a perfectly good * argument*!" "Oh. Errr, gee, . . . Sorry? Oh, but see here, if that's the case, then there's no problem because now you've * made* your point. So you don't need it anymore." Debbie looks considerably brighter. Charis reassuringly continues, now nodding her head knowingly. "Yes, precisely! You are most definitely right. Indubitably so. I must indeed concede that there * are* ways to make even the Beatle's songs sound bad. But, hey! Really, what group could stand up to such a test? It's just not possible and anyway it would be really rather * useless* as well to write music that would sound harmonious even when played backwards, don't you agree? I mean, all in all I think that's really asking for a bit too much and. . ." Charis's voice trails off as she notices the look on Debbie's face. Debbie has sunk to the floor. Her head is in her hands. There's a look of utter disbelief on her face as she stares up at Charis and shakes her head sadly. Charis winces. "Oh, err, that * wasn't* your point? Oh. I did wonder there for a moment, you know. . . Well, in that case why don't we get to the real issue at hand, eh?" * * * Right. I think it's been pretty convincingly argued that the wailing of a golden Triwizard Tournament egg is unlikely to sound much like someone subjected to the Cruciatus Curse. (though I must point out that nobody on this list has ever heard either of them:--) People scream when in pain, they yell, they shriek and maybe they pant or gasp a bit afterwards too (all of which various characters in the books have done) but they would hardly "wail". My dictionary gives "to wail" as "to lament or sorrow audibly, esp with prolonged and high?pitched mournful cries", which admittedly does not fit the bill. Buuuuuuuuut. . . Ah, yes there is a but! What makes us so sure, Debbie, that Neville at the Gryffindor celebration party is really sitting there thinking "Hang on. Better be sure of exactly what I'm going to say before I open my mouth. Right. First thing's first. Now, I hear the Egg right there in front of me. Lets just imagine the sound of my parents being tortured and then compare the results." Unlikely. Neville is in * shock* right then. He's not thinking straight. He's not conducting a thorough scientific examination of high?decibel noises, but, quite to the contrary, what he basically is is frightened * out* of his wits. I repeat. He's in * shock*. And now to poove it. Charis grinning wildly yanks a book out from inside her robes. It's titled "Horrible Histories. The Frightful First Would War." Debbie raises her eye?brows smirking slightly. "No, no," Charis hurriedly explains. "It's reliable. Really" Debbie looks down at the front cover: "Noses are red, My feet are blue, There's lice in m pants And the rats ate the stew" Debbie looks unconvinced. Choosing to ignore the slight sneer lurking at the side of Debbie's month Charis flips through the pages. "Where is it. . . where is it. . . Ah! Right! There, read that!" Charis hands the book over indicting a small paragraph quoting a survivor of the Great War. Debbie flicks through the passage: "The noise of a slamming gate, a flaring gaslight, a train whistle, the barking of a dog or some boyish prank is enough to set off my trembling. Or, sometimes the trembling comes without a reason. All of a sudden I felt my strength was leaving me. I stopped talking. I felt a shiver in my back, I felt my cheeks going hollow. I began to stare and the trembling came back on again." As Debbie hands back the book Charis smiles proudly out at her. "There. See? Now surely you're not going to argue that a train whistle sounds more like a Five?Nine blasting into the ground ahead than an indefinable wail does to the sound of Crucioed wizards, are you?" Anyway, Charis presses her advantage, lets take a look at Neville's symptoms, shall we? He goes * very white* and spills sausages all over the floor. ? obviously all that trembling you realise. And previously, after Moody's Unforgivble lesson Neville is * staring* at the wall opposite him. He's hardly able to talk. An unnaturally high voice. He's getting confused. He has a wide?eyed, horrified look. You know, I'm no way near being an expert on these matters (but then again neither is JKR I suspect) But these reactions sound an awful lot like the behaviour of all the shell?shocked soldiers in every war book I've ever read from "No News on the Western Front" to "The Divided Sea". "Neville," Charis concludes happily closing the book with a snap, "has Post?Traumatic Stress Disorder! He's Spell?Shocked." Sooooo, every loud noise makes his mind leap automatically to the Cruciatus. He can't help it. And especially after that nice little reminder of his parents torment courtesy of Monsieur Crouch which made all those old memories resurface with a vengeance. Of course this theory only works if Neville is * not* under a Memory Spell. If he were he'd have nothing to remember and shock him, see? Sure he'd feel bad about his parents an'all, but hey, lets be realistic here ? bad enough to get the words "dinner" and "lesson" mixed up? He might be * upset*. He might feel * resentful*. He might even spend a few nights staring into mirrors with magical properties envisioning the happy childhood he'd have had had his parents been healthy. But he wouldn't drop sausages. After all Harry does get a bit lamentful over Lily and James's demise once in a while and he might blow up an aunt or two when he's feeling really rough, but when Moody mentions AK what he feels mostly is, well, * informed*. And he certainly doesn't clutch at the desk till his knuckles go white, his eyes wide--open in terror. On the other hand the Dementors, as you admit Debbie, had a profound influence on Harry. That's because this is the first time he's had to face what Cindy would call the Dolby Digital, mega?screen, extra special effects version of his parents last moments. But as Eileen points out Neville is an old hand at this game. One last comment. Everyone's been concentrating so much on the Cruciatus suggestion that we're ignoring what the Egg sounds like to other people. "Ah? ha". Clogs start working in Charis Julia's brain. "So it was Percy that tortured the Longbottoms. . . Driven insane by lack of rhyming. The dreaded Off-Key Curse!" Err, no, actually. What did catch my eye though and what I * do* think noteworthy is Seamus's proffer. "Sounded like a banshee. . ." A banshee as we all know is Seamus's Boggart in PoA. Very natural too as banshees I believe originate in Ireland which is according to all indications Seamus's homeland. But what exactly * is * a banshee? Not listed in FB, but according to Priscilla Spencer's What's In A Name a banshee is "a crying spirit or fairy whose scream announced imminent death. She has long streaming hair and is dressed in a grey cloak over a green dress. Her eyes are fiery red from constant weeping." Maybe there was a banshee present at the Longbottoms torture scene. After all if you're sublimated to such pain that you're left irrevocably mad then surely it is not carrying it too far to propose that your death would then have been "imminent" and would probably have ensued had the pain not been removed when it was. So maybe Neville heard his parents screams and heard the banshee's wails and got then all just so mixed up, so indistinguishably intertwined in his head, that ?especially after the continual replays? he simply can't tell the one from the other. Or at the very least they are so interknitted in his mind that when hearing a drawn out wail he is just as likely to cry out "Cruciatus" as "banshee". And then you've got that feathery git of a Jabberknoll just making it all worse. Wails, screaches, screams, it sure was noisy that night, I'm _ telling_ you! Charis Julia, who firmly believes in Memory Potions because they * are* Can(n)on. From pen at pensnest.co.uk Wed May 29 08:33:33 2002 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 09:33:33 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco Malfoy Is Ever So Lame & A Taste of Moody In-Reply-To: <31.2789afc2.2a252c58@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39144 >In a message dated 5/27/2002 11:30:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > >cindysphynx at comcast.net writes: > > > ><< But, I fear, I'm not seeing Redeemable!Draco. I think JKR is > writing Draco as a flat cariacature with no redeeming > characteristics at all at the moment. That's how I see him, > anyway. >> Malfoy is Mabel. Or possibly Veronica. No, really. Come on, doesn't anyone else remember those delicious Girls' Boarding School stories we... well, I, at any rate, used to read? Stories in which Our Heroine (Pippa, or Daisy, or something similarly wholesome), the poverty-stricken but noble-in-character scholarship pupil arrived at a Jolly Good School and was promptly picked on by The Nasty Little Rich Girl (Veronica or Mabel) because she had No Money and came from a Poor Family. Our Heroine underwent many trials, petty nastinesses of all kinds were inflicted by Mabel (or Veronica), but Virtue Triumphed In The End. Usually there was a Poignant Scene in which Our Heroine came to Mabel's (or Veronica's) rescue, and Mabel (or Veronica) made a tearful recantation and Avowal of Friendship. Look, it works when you're nine, okay? I loved those books. Malfoy is Mabel. Pen [Anyone who does remember That Sort of Book with any affection should hasten to a performance of "Daisy Pulls It Off", which is an absolute gem.] From lupinesque at yahoo.com Wed May 29 10:16:43 2002 From: lupinesque at yahoo.com (lupinesque) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 10:16:43 -0000 Subject: Peeves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39145 Chyna Rose wrote: > After all, we've certainly seen evidence that mental > ideas can take a non-coporal form (thoughts in the pensive). > > I wonder if Peevees and the pensive were ever meant to be connected though. Only ask and it shall be given to you. Neil, who was around before this list hit 10000 messages so must be an aged aged man, had a brilliant theory about this: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/5505 Of course, "meant to be connected" raises interesting questions (see the Authorial Intent thread on OTChatter). Amy Z From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed May 29 06:06:26 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 06:06:26 -0000 Subject: Remus isn't THAT nice In-Reply-To: <17c.8f717af.2a252ebf@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39146 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Chelsea2162 at a... wrote: > In a message dated 5/27/2002 10:24:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > foxmoth at q... writes: > Pippin says: > First of all Remus is dangerous. There's no telling when he will > forget to take his potion, except for the narrative certainty that it > will be at absolutely the wrong time. > Chelsea says: > Yes, Remus is dangerous in wolf form, but I've always pictured him as > very intelligent and friendly and kind. True, he was acted a bit stupid > during his school years when he and the MWPP group snuck off while he was in > werewolf form, but can you reealy blame him? It was stupid and someone > could've gotten hurt, but he wanted to be normal so badly, and he took the > precautions and had James and Sirius transform inro large animals to keep in > him check. I see Remus as someone who is in deep denial about how dangerous he really is as a werewolf. That's why he allows himself to play around with the Maurauders whilst a werewolf, that's why he accepts a job in a school full of children who don't know how to defend themselves against a werewolf, that's why he forgets to take his potion. Yes, he pays lip service to his dangerousness. But he doesn't act like he believes it. He acts as if he thinks that there is still going to be some smidgen of self restraint in him. As if he thinks that he's not *really* going to kill anyone, right? If Remus truly believed that he was a monstrous killer while werewolf, then the FIRST thing he would have done on seeing Peter Petigrew's name on the map would have been to think 'Arggh! It's a full moon', run like heck to Snape's office and ask 'is that potion ready?' and THEN go after Peter. Instead he forgets, transforms, nearly kills the Trio, lets Peter escape and ruins Sirius's chance of freedom. (Admittedly remembering the potion would have ruined the plot, but still...) Remember that Snape, who has seen Remus in his werewolf state, is terrified of him. This is the same Snape who bounces into rooms holding mountain trolls, threatens Dark Wizards, risks death and torture by spying on Voldemort and is prepared to face off a wizard he believes has killed twelve people with a single curse. And he's *scared* of Remus. It may be an unpopular view, but I think Remus is the first sign we have that Dumbledore doesn't always trust the right people. I also think Snape was right in forcing his resignation at the end of GoF. Pip (who also thinks Human!Remus is very nice. But wouldn't like to live with him.) From Edblanning at aol.com Wed May 29 13:27:15 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 09:27:15 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: Stunning!Harry Message-ID: <16d.e4367f3.2a263133@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39147 LD: > Cindysphynx wrote: > > "Could it be," continued the Captain, "that the reason JKR > > introduces the idea of a Shield Charm (and the reason Harry can't > > get it to work) is that Harry already has a shield? So attempting > > an ordinary Shield Charm won't work because he already *has* a > > shield? It's *redundant*, don't you know?" > > To which Marina replied: > >If Harry has a shield, I think he should send it back to the > >manufacturers with an angry letter and make them fix it so that it > >works against Cruciatus. Otherwise the thing becomes pretty darn > >useless. > > > >Marina > > LD: > Well, perhaps it only works against the physical 'blast of magic' type > of attacks? Cruciatus seems to work on the mind, where Harry's mental > resiliance and strong will is meant to help him get through it (like it > does with Imperius for example, where Harry is able to throw it off). > Thinking in that way, the spells that are likely to be deflected are > ones like Stupify and Avada Kedavra, both of which seem to fire blasts > of energy at the target. > OTOH, perhaps a shield charm simply doesn't work against the Unforgivables. This would tie in with the suggestion that the reason the Unforgivable curses *are* unforgivable is that they cannot be blocked. This of course would imply that Avada Kadavra, which, it was suggested the other day may also work on the mind, or rather the brain, causing an instant brain-death was eqally unaffected by being in possession of a shield charm. Which would mean we still didn't know what saved him from Voldemort as an infant. Not very helpful, but there you are. :-) Eloise Who wishes that the memory charm with which she has been inflicted would be lifted so that she remember who came up with the ideas she's quoted. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From maryblue67 at yahoo.com Wed May 29 13:46:02 2002 From: maryblue67 at yahoo.com (Maria) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 06:46:02 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Voldemort and Quirrel (Short) In-Reply-To: <1022670953.960.5369.m12@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20020529134602.17860.qmail@web11105.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39148 >> "usergoogol" wrote: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Maria wrote: > Now, i also have a question regarding Quirrel. I don't have the book > with me, but i remember that Harry notices that Quirrell is wearing a > strange turban once at Hogwarts. Also, at the end of PS, Quirrel is > telling Harry how his Master was most displeased when he failed to > steal the stone in Gringotts, and how he had to get a closer watch on > him, or something like that. Does this mean that when Harry meets > Quirrel at the Leaky Cauldron Voldemort is not yet sharing Quirrel's > body? Any thoughts on this? ------------ Personally, I think it is reasonable to assume this. Why? Primarily because, IIRC, Quirrel very nervously shakes Harry's hand. If Voldemort had been inside Quirrel at that time, he would have been unable to touch Harry's hand. >>> That is a good point, actually. Thanks for the remark. Also, i noticed that in the movie he does not shake Harry's hand, and he is wearing the turban, i wonder why they couldn't be a bit more faithful instead of messing up in silly things like that. But indeed, i got the impression in this reading that the sharing of the body didn't happen until Quirrel made the mistake of not getting the stone. Also, i wonder what kind of punishment Voldemort gave Quirrel when Harry heard them in the empty classroom (and he thought Snape was there too, wrongly). Maria ===== Maryblue ---------------------------------------------------------- "Gravitation cannot be held responsible for people falling in love" - Eistein __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From cindysphynx at comcast.net Wed May 29 14:05:11 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:05:11 -0000 Subject: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR & The Ever So Frustrating Egg In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39149 What on earth is it going to take to get Cindy to *give up already* about the darn Egg's wail? I wish someone would tell me, 'cause I'm starting to *worry* about myself here. But I cannot rest until I get this MATCHINGARMCHAIR to Bang properly, darn it! OK, it's time for a Come-Back! **************** Charis Julia wrote: > Right. I think it's been pretty convincingly argued that the >wailing of a golden Triwizard Tournament egg is unlikely to sound >much like someone subjected to the Cruciatus Curse. (though I must >point out that nobody on this list has ever heard either of them:-- ) Yes. Just so that we're all on the same page, GoF describes the Egg as follows: "The most horrible noise, a loud and screechy wailing." Harry. "Wailing, screeching sound." "Incomprehensible." Harry. The ghost orchestra playing musical saws. Harry. A banshee. Seamus "It was someone being tortured!" Neville. (Note that Neville does not say that it "sounded like" someone being tortured). "A bit like Percy singing." George. "What's this racket?" Filch. OK, so hold that thought. Charis Julia: > What makes us so sure, Debbie, that Neville at the Gryffindor > celebration party is really sitting there thinking "Hang on. >Better be sure of exactly what I'm going to say before I open my >mouth. Right. First thing's first. Now, I hear the Egg right there >in front of me. Lets just imagine the sound of my parents being >tortured and then compare the results." > > > Unlikely. OK, this bit I like. Obviously, we're seeing a bit of a knee-jerk reaction from Neville. Almost a panic reaction. All right, I'm with you so far, Charis Julia. Charis Julia: > Sooooo, every loud noise makes his mind leap automatically to the > Cruciatus. He can't help it. And especially after that nice little > reminder of his parents torment courtesy of Monsieur Crouch which > made all those old memories resurface with a vengeance. Ah, but *why*? *Why* does Neville liken the Egg's wail to torture? Is he thinking of his parents' tortured screams, the ones he hears because of the Memory Potion? Is he hearing the tortured sound of Snape slowly twisting the life from Neville's beloved and helpless blue bird? Well, maybe. But there are two other possibilities to explain Neville's reaction. The first option is that Neville reacts the way he does because of those dreaded visits to his parents at St. Mungos. What do his parents likely *do* during those visits? Well, that depends on whether you want a Bang or not. If you want a Bang (as I surely do), then they *wail*, that's what they do! They are insane, Dumbledore tells us. They do not recognize Neville. Fair enough. But what is the most Bangy scenario we can think of to explain what the Longbottoms might actually *do* during those visits? Having them lie quietly in their beds, staring at the ceiling, being rolled over every hour on the hour, is a total Dud. No, they need to *wail*, just like the Egg. Loudly. They sit up, clutching their knees, rocking back and forth, wailing loudly pretty much non-stop. Heck, if you really want a Huge Bang, we can decide that the closer Neville comes, the more loudly they wail. So (boy, I hope I can add this up properly), Neville hears the Egg's wail and doesn't liken it to the night of the torture, as he recalls that his parents sounded nothing like the Egg when Mrs. Lestrange was working them over. Neville doesn't think it sounds like the Jobberknoll. No, Neville is reminded of the torture because his parents wail just like the Egg during his most recent visit with them. Now, there's a second option for those still unconvinced. It could simply be that the character of the Egg's wail changes for each person hearing it. The noise is is what it is, but each person hears something deeply and subjectively unpleasant. For Harry, it is the ghost orchestra. For Seamus, it is the banshee. For George, it is annoying Percy. For Filch, it is a "racket" -- the kind of irritating noise mischievous students make. For me, it would be the voice of Gilderoy Lockhart. And for Neville . . . well, for Neville, it is those horrid visits to his wailing parents. Heck, if we decide the Egg's wail is subjective, then we can really destroy the Egg argument. Neville really *might* be hearing his parents tortured cries again, even though it doesn't sound like that to anyone else. And what freaks him out is not the sound -- he has heard that a million times. It is the fact that the sound isn't inside his own head this time -- and that *is* something new, different and frightening. Good reason to drop a plate of sausages, I'd say. And what, BTW, is the canon for the idea that the Egg's wail might affect each listener differently? Gee, is there anything we've seen so far that objects each person differently? Ah, but of course! Dementors and boggarts! The effect of a dementor and a boggart are both highly subjective and individualized. Oh, yeah. There's plenty of precedent to believe that Neville really did hear in the Egg his parents' torture after all. So, Eileen and Charis Julia, we can have our MATCHINGARMCHAIR with Jobberknoll plus Wailing Insane Parents Variant. Or we can go with MATCHINGARMCHAIR with Jobberknoll plus Subjective Egg Variant with optional Wailing Insane Parents. Your choice. And Debbie, we'd *love* to have you on board, so will you convert? We've rather thrown in the towel on converting Elkins. ;-) Cindy (saluting Eileen and Charis Julia for the unwavering loyalty when Cindy was so clearly beaten) From Edblanning at aol.com Wed May 29 14:35:06 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 10:35:06 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: MACHINGARMCHAIR Message-ID: <9.28aa048d.2a26411a@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39150 Charis Julia: > "Neville," Charis concludes happily closing the book with a > I love this idea, it makes a whole lot of sense. > > > Sooooo, every loud noise makes his mind leap automatically to the > Cruciatus. He can't help it. And especially after that nice little > reminder of his parents torment courtesy of Monsieur Crouch which > made all those old memories resurface with a vengeance. > > > Of course this theory only works if Neville is * not* under a Memory > OTOH, I'm not so sure about this. Forgive me if this was covered in the Symposium (I was asleep for most of it, if you recall), but one of the things I've always wondered about memory charms is just how completely do they wipe memories? Are there different degrees of memory charm, as I think I have heard suggested, so that the most severe is the type put on Bertha, which can only be broken by torture, but others of lesser degree that can be broken more easily? But what chiefly intrigues me is at what level the memory is wiped. In fact, *is* it wiped, or merely suppressed? If memory charms merely *suppress* memory, then Neville might not be affected on a day-to-day basis by the trauma he suffered as an infant, yet it might be re-awakened in his subconscious by something such as the egg's wailing. Another point I'd like to make is that even if Neville has no *memory* of the events (and it would seem unlikely anyway, given his very young age at the time, memory charm or no), or no conscious trauma caused by them, he still *knows* what happened. He *knows* his parents were tortured; he has to see the results every holiday. This is traumatic in itself. He doesn't have to *remember* witnessing the Cruciatus performed on his parents to make connections. > > On the other hand the Dementors, as you admit Debbie, had a profound > influence on Harry. That's because this is the first time he's had to > face what Cindy would call the Dolby Digital, mega?screen, extra > special effects version of his parents last moments. But as Eileen > And there may have been other occasions on which these memories have been awoken. If memory charms *suppress* memory, then it is possible that the Dementors cannot awaken them, but that noises such as the egg can. > > > One last comment. > > > Everyone's been concentrating so much on the Cruciatus suggestion > that we're ignoring what the Egg sounds like to other people. "Ah? > ha". Clogs start working in Charis Julia's brain. "So it was Percy > that tortured the Longbottoms. . . Driven insane by lack of rhyming. > The dreaded Off-Key Curse!" > > Err, no, actually. What did catch my eye though and what I * do* > think noteworthy is Seamus's proffer. "Sounded like a banshee. . ." > > > A banshee as we all know is Seamus's Boggart in PoA. Very natural too > as banshees I believe originate in Ireland which is according to all > Indeed they do. Perhaps this one popped over on the ferry! But seriously, it does seem as if the egg's strange wailing evoked different things in different people, presumably because it was not precisely like anything else and so each made the best approximation from their experience. It is curious, though, that Seamus *does* hear it as a wailing ('wailing' is the term I would associate with them - 'wailing like a banshee' - rather than 'screaming'), whereas Harry thinks it is like the Deathday party orchestra, which in CoS is described as sounding like fingernails being scraped down a blackboard. If it wasn't for George's facetious remark and Harry's reaction, I'd be tempted to say that it reminds people of what they fear most, similar to a Boggart (and thus further establishing Snape at the scene of the crime), but I don't think it can be so. But perhaps the dreadful noise does just re-awaken in post-traumatic stress manner, the awful thing which is hidden in the back of Neville's mind, either repressed naturally, or through a memory charm, or that he simply cannot remember because he was too young: the awful thing which his family make sure that he cannot forget *about*. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jmt59home at aol.com Wed May 29 16:26:13 2002 From: jmt59home at aol.com (jtdogberry) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 16:26:13 -0000 Subject: TBAY: MACHINGARMCHAIR, Lestange and extras. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39151 Dogberry staggers around, with a bottle in one hand, a big grin and then looks out to the bay. For some strange reason all the boats are going around in circles, but then again, there is only one paddle left. But surley they are trying to go somewhere, Where though? > * * * --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "charisjulia" wrote: > What makes us so sure, Debbie, that Neville at the Gryffindor > celebration party is really sitting there thinking "Hang on. Better > be sure of exactly what I'm going to say before I open my mouth. > Right. First thing's first. Now, I hear the Egg right there in front > of me. Lets just imagine the sound of my parents being tortured and > then compare the results." > > > Unlikely. > > > Neville is in * shock* right then. He's not thinking straight. He's > not conducting a thorough scientific examination of high?decibel > noises, but, quite to the contrary, what he basically is is > frightened * out* of his wits. I repeat. He's in * shock*. And now to > poove it. > Charis hands the book over indicting a small paragraph quoting a > survivor of the Great War. Debbie flicks through the passage: > > "The noise of a slamming gate, a flaring gaslight, a train whistle, > the barking of a dog or some boyish prank is enough to set off my > trembling. Or, sometimes the trembling comes without a reason. > All of a sudden I felt my strength was leaving me. I stopped talking. > I felt a shiver in my back, I felt my cheeks going hollow. I began to > stare and the trembling came back on again." > > > As Debbie hands back the book Charis smiles proudly out at > her. "There. See? Now surely you're not going to argue that a train > whistle sounds more like a Five?Nine blasting into the ground ahead > than an indefinable wail does to the sound of Crucioed wizards, are > you?" > > > Anyway, Charis presses her advantage, lets take a look at Neville's > symptoms, shall we? He goes * very white* and spills sausages all > over the floor. ? obviously all that trembling you realise. And > previously, after Moody's Unforgivble lesson Neville is * staring* at > the wall opposite him. He's hardly able to talk. An unnaturally high > voice. He's getting confused. He has a wide?eyed, horrified look. > > > You know, I'm no way near being an expert on these matters (but then > again neither is JKR I suspect) But these reactions sound an awful > lot like the behaviour of all the shell?shocked soldiers in every war > book I've ever read from "No News on the Western Front" to "The > Divided Sea". Hmm, I like this argument. It sounds real. It could also explain a lot about Neville. Little things trigging off a memory. Being kept in a dark dungeon with a scary man in black robes would certainly make him uneasy. Remember that Harry descibes the room in the Pensive as a dungeon with stone walls and no windows, and where does Neville have potions? The dungeon which has no windows and is cold and gloomy. He associates Snape with the room and hence is scared of him (sorry guys, no big Snape Bang.) Where as herbology is warm, outside and with plants. There is something very "safe" about plants, almost comforting, again, comparing it to some of the soliders in the first world war who took up hobbies that meant that they would have to concentrate on something else (anyone read/seen Longitude? I would quote it but I don't have it here) that needs care. It could be the same for Neville. It may help to understand his family as well which is where I am having problems, they seem to be assuming that he is over it but he's not, or doing what they think is best, I could be wrong (most likly... *side note* just to add to the evil Gran, why didn't she want to go the world cup?). BTW, what side of the family is Gran on? I can't find any reference in the books to say that it is his dad's mum. > "Neville," Charis concludes happily closing the book with a > snap, "has Post?Traumatic Stress Disorder! He's Spell?Shocked." > > > Sooooo, every loud noise makes his mind leap automatically to the > Cruciatus. He can't help it. And especially after that nice little > reminder of his parents torment courtesy of Monsieur Crouch which > made all those old memories resurface with a vengeance. Which could explain his "cowardice and clumsiness" quite a fair bit. But what if he wasn't there? As for the egg, personally I think we're going a bit too deep into this. It's like a stink bomb, some would say, it's smells like someone has let off, another would say it smells like rotten eggs, some say rubbish e.t.c. Avery, er, I'm confused, where are all of the theories coming from. Why not Nott or anyone else, I don't understand why it has to be Avery. Mrs Lestrange. Sirus knows that she's still there and has said so unless he is evil as well. Although, I do find it a bit weird that if Mrs Figg is a witch, why doesn't she go to get the leg fixed at St Mungos? They would have it done in a moment. Dogberry *sitting on the sunny theory bay enjoying freedom* From kerelsen at quik.com Wed May 29 17:05:25 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:05:25 -0400 Subject: Werewolves, silver and prior planning... Message-ID: <000b01c20733$08873380$3021b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 39152 I've tried to do searches of past postings on this but I guess I'm just not good at telling search engines where to go... Anyway, my 13 year old daughter and I have just finished reading PoA and were discussing Remus Lupin being a werewolf while we were doing dishes. Yes, the doing dishes does figure in the topic... She made a comment that sort of fits in with the idea of JKR setting things up in the first book and then picking up on them in later ones. We were cleaning our good silver, the stuff you have to polish to keep it from turning black, and she mentioned that Lupin wouldn't be able to touch it because it's dangerous to werewolves. And then I (not really thinking about it) said, "But if he doesn't use silverware and has to have different types of eating utensils and plates than everyone else, people are going to guess his secret." Then my Ever-So-Smart! daughter pointed out that on Harry's first day at Hogwarts we were told that the plates and flatware were made of GOLD.... (Insert image of mom smacking self on forehead with back of hand covered in soapsuds) So, does this count as another bit of evidence that JKR HAS been setting bits in place to touch on in later books? 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 foxmoth at qnet.com Wed May 29 17:03:15 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 17:03:15 -0000 Subject: Madame Lestrange is Loose! (no TBAY or Dementors) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39153 Cindy wrote: >>>>I think I'm on board (but poised to jump ship at any moment), although there is the obstacle that Mrs. Lestrange gets out of prison and no one notices or cares. Mrs. Lestrange is *infamous*, isn't she? There was tremendous pressure for her arrest, and the Pensieve Four were jeered by the mob. If she escaped from Azkaban, the event would receive almost as much attention as Sirius' escape. So if Mrs. Lestrange escaped, it was and still is a Big Secret.<<<< I agree, we must account for this. But I have a simpler solution which does not call for evil Fudge or evil Bagman or duplicitous Dementors. Mrs. Lestrange's cell is *not* empty. Who is in it? And how did she get there, and why doesn't anyone notice? Is there a conveniently missing witch? Of course there is, the erstwhile Mrs. Arabella Figg. The sequence of events is quite simple. Quirrell returns to England following his sabbatical, accompanied by noxious fume Voldemort. It is Quirrell, the brilliant DADA specialist, who has learned from Dumbledore about the defenses around Privet Drive and informs Voldemort about the protections surrounding young Harry. Quirrell abducts Mrs. Figg, transfigures her into an inanimate object, enters Azkaban undetected,(easy for Quirrell, who broke into Gringott's and made his way past all the obstacles in SS/PS),rescues Mrs. Lestrange, transfigures *her* into an inanimate object, and leaves poor, imperio'd Arabella, now restored to human form, in her place. The Dementors do not notice the substitution, because they are blind. And by the time one of those infrequent Azkaban inspections takes place, well, one skeletal, deranged female with waist-length matted hair looks very much like another, particularly for courtly gentlemen like Arthur and Cornelius, who aren't inclined to look too closely. Arabella, whom I like to think is Sirius' potential love interest, is protected from the worst effects of the Dementors by the Imperius curse. She is aware of only that lovely, floaty sensation. Ah, but she is in great danger, because when Azkaban is broken open, Voldemort will not need her any longer. I hope Sirius figures out what is going on in time to save her. But surely, surely, you say, Mrs. Figg can't be in Azkaban. She has to be somewhere nearby so that Mrs. Lestrange has a handy supply of hair to keep the polyjuice vat bubbling. But since Mrs. Figg herself was polyjuiced, (hence the cabbage smell), this isn't an obstacle at all. Mrs. Lestrange keeps up the disguise quite easily using whatever source the original Arabella had. I have no canon to support this part, but I speculate that there is an elderly Muggle lady in Majorca who is receiving quite a handsome stipend in return for snipping off a few hairs every month and mailing them to an address in Little Whinging. Pippin From gwendolyngrace at yahoo.com Wed May 29 17:19:14 2002 From: gwendolyngrace at yahoo.com (gwendolyngrace) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 17:19:14 -0000 Subject: Official Philip Nel Question #9: House Elves (includes some fanfic theory) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39154 Hello, again! As promised, now that a few others are discussion the house-elf question, I'm free to add my own opinions. > 2. A related point: Hermione says that the house > elves have been brainwashed into accepting their jobs. Should we > agree with her? Do we see the means through which the elves are > brainwashed? > Since as yet, we haven't seen the means through which they may be brainwashed, I believe they are not--not exactly, anyway. Let me explain. Hm. Well, first of all, specious assignations of identity aside (sorry, Amy!), I lay down my position pretty well in 26785. My belief is that we are meant to take house-elves literally for what they are, but metaphorically as a statement that not all problems require the same tool. Banging on a washing machine with a hammer is unlikely to do it much good, if it needs a new belt. Hermione, IMO, is like a hammer to the subtle problem of house-elves. I do not believe that their "enslavement" is the issue, so much as it is their entrenchment in a system that exploits their other rights. Dobby clearly can tell what is right vs. what is easy, and he chooses the right path, even though he must injure himself to take it. If the captivity of house-elves were not so absolute, if their minds and hearts were not assumed to be given wholly to the service of their masters, more house-elves would be able to shake off their masters' plans when they do not serve the light. But how do we know they don't? We haven't seen them en masse in an evil household yet?-unless one believes that Dumbledore is ever-so-evil. It's my prediction that the success of Dobby will lead some of the elves in other DE households to subtly work behind their masters' backs to bring about ruination. OTOH, the elves must weigh the risk and the danger to themselves, especially since it's my opinion that a house-elf's magic is tied to his service. A house-elf who is not "in fealty," as it were, or at least giving himself selflessly in the service of others, is in danger of draining his powers away. So house- elves need families to serve if they are to survive?-unless a fundamental change in their situation and/or their natures is also brought about by the act of a number of them shaking off their yoke. Let me use my fic to illustrate. I had an idea about house-elves in that fic?-well, actually, several. One idea was whether there was any kind of difference in JKR's world between the house-elves we've seen and any other kind of elf. If there is, what is that difference? I decided they were related, but several things happened along the way to change them. First, I really wanted to use the link from service to power, so I speculated that a house-elf amasses greater powers by serving his masters well and faithfully. Second, I wanted to provide some explanation for the whole clothes = freedom thing, so I came up with a hazy sort of backstory for the house-elves' enslavement, which blurs the line drawn between an elf like Dobby and one like Winky. Third, I wanted to provide some explanation as to why they hadn't all up and revolted before now, so I gave them a semi-Messianic myth, that one day, there will come a deliverer of some kind. (No self- respecting house-elf would believe it's Dobby, though. :^)) And last, I believe there are other, less tangible consequences to disobedience, besides physical punishment, so I showed that through the means of a geas or weird that lies on house-elves, paralleling the events that led to their enslavement in the first place, so that they have incentive against breaking their bonds. The result is a house-elf mythos that reconciles Winky, Dobby, and the elves in between, allows for the existence of some other species of elf we haven't yet met, and explains both why they are enslaved and why they continue to be enslaved. I deliberately didn't develop it fully, nor indeed go anywhere past the fuzzy outlines of these ideas. But consider it this way: 1. The house-elves are creatures of magic. Their magic is regenerated through acts of service. Therefore, they *must* serve or their powers fade gradually, and if they fade too far, they will die. However, house-elves also have some mortality, and regardless of whether or not they serve, they do still age, and eventually will die of old age despite long service. 2. While the service given by a house-elf must be selfless, that is, done freely and willingly, the house-elves did enter a compact with humans eons ago in order to ensure that they would always have masters to serve. Over time, that relationship has become more entrenched and some masters have come to scorn their servants rather than appreciate them. 3. Presenting clothing to a house-elf breaks the contract, but it is also tantamount to outlawing that elf, or else murdering him. An elf without an assured source of service is an elf who is consigned to working in secret. This is how I believe Dobby survived for the two years before he came to Hogwarts: by "helping" families without their knowledge, and without pay, simply in order to maintain his level of power and energy. 4. Although the house-elf compact with humans has developed into discrete relationships with specific families, the house-elf still exercises some free will as to the manner of service. There is a professional pride, of course, to seeing that the chores are done well, regardless of whom one serves. In addition, there is the threat of punishment from some masters if their orders are not obeyed. But within the letter of that law, house-elves often have leeway. I am thinking here of the tendency of the Little Folk in Irish and British mythology to find the loophole in any situation (much as Dobby does with his sock). They can, like Dobby, choose to serve a "greater good" than their earthly masters, without impact on their abilities or their magical stores. 5. However, doing so bears a hidden price. By willfully ignoring what the wishes of their masters would be, in order to serve a higher purpose, the house-elves compound their situation with regard to the magical contract they entered with humans. They can either accept punishment as their due, or they pass on their term of service to another generation of elves. In other words, Dobby hit himself with the lamp or banged his fingers in the oven door to incur his punishment solely on himself, rather than passing an obligation to serve onto his progeny or another branch of his family. 6. Just for fun, I also set another limitation on house-elves: they cannot use their powers against someone of their own kin, and that limitation is "extended" onto their masters for the duration of their service. Doing so incurs the same type of price as working against their masters' purposes, only to a much greater extent. So that has the effect of rendering house-elves pretty much harmless against their own masters, and backs up Fred's statement to the effect that they can't use their magic without permission. In terms of Dobby and Winky, here's how it looks: 1. Dobby has the misfortune of being born into a family of elves serving dark wizards. They are stuck, because of the compact, or perhaps because previous generations of elves serving the Malfoys tried to work against them and wound up having to serve for another period of time. So he tries as much as possible to keep his head down and do what he's told. 2. Harry Potter defeats Voldemort. Death Eaters have to pretend to be nice wizards again, and to some extent that reflects on their treatment of house-elves. Dobby's situation isn't great, still, but it's a lot better. Somewhere along the way, Dobby develops an unusually progressive idea about monetary compensation, though perhaps this is more of a status indicator than anything else, or maybe he really is ahead of his time. 3. Dobby learns of the plot to use the diary, and decides that protecting HP is more important than his geas to serve. In his mind, he transfers his service to Harry Potter, but he can't completely give up serving the Malfoys because he hasn't been freed from the contract with them (clothes). 4. In order to help HP without consigning his family to another generation worth (or more) of service to "bad dark wizards," Dobby punishes himself physically. He justifies his actions by deciding that helping HP is a greater good than serving the Malfoys without question. 5. When he sees a loophole in the system, he jumps through it. Thus he is freed, but now he has the problem that he must serve in order to stay alive. 6. Dobby wanders through the country looking for work. If his strength begins to flag, he may perform a random act of kindness just in order to replenish his reserves. Finally, he thinks of Hogwarts, but having pledged his loyalty, in effect, to HP in CoS, he still considers himself in service to Harry. Of course, at Hogwarts, it's much easier to serve Harry, because Dumbledore doesn't restrict the elves nearly as much as the Malfoys. Winky, by contrast, is I think just as much an aberration as Dobby. I agree with Dave that the clothing is a binding gesture--she must accept it even if it had been an accident. I think that the identification with her family, though, is perhaps a little more obsessive than most house-elves tend to behave. Having been sacked, she does not adjust at all. She is not serving any purpose in the Hogwarts kitchen, and I believe that her powers and her will to live are both diminishing because she is not working. Amanda (gosh, I hope it was Amanda) mentioned that she thinks house- elves really are connected to a place, and only come to serve the family as an extension of their ownership of that place, based on the twins' comment that they come with large houses and mansions and castles. However, Dobby says in GoF: "Winky forgets she is not bound to Mr. Crouch anymore," which could as easily be an indication that they are, in fact, tied to a family and barring some other breach of contract, go where the family go. On a slightly different note, some folks pointed out the similarity between house-elf speech and the slave dialect used in 19th century period pieces. I find that really interesting, because I never even considered that was a possible parallel. I did think it was a sort of pidgin, as if they didn't really speak English as a first language, but I never equated it to the usual "yas, massa" kind of accent represented in stories like "Gone with the Wind" or other Civil War era tales. Just because it made me curious, I looked up some of the speech in one of my favourite series of books. I have a few sentences of dialect from that book, "Yankee Stranger," by Elswyth Thane. It's the second in a fabulous series of books about several families who grow up in Williamsburg, Virginia. Yankee Stranger was published in 1944, but the dialect used is typical of the type others referred to, IMO. Contrast them with some of the house-elf speech. "Done tol' me a lie," Micah ruminated. "Didn' look right, neither. Peak-ed, kinda. Marse Sedgwick have a fit." He pondered the last idea unhappily. "Yassuh, Marse Sedgwick sho' nuff gimme the debbil effen he knowed I let her ride off by herself like dat." He sighed philosophically, "Well, reckon I got to go tell him." (Yankee Stranger, 18th printing, page 100-1) Here's another passage: "Miss Felicity, ma'am, Miss Louise sont me to tell you all de wounded has begun to come in an' dey's a-sortin' of `em out down at de College, an' could use mo' help?" "Is there anyone?-has she heard from??" "Oh, Lawdy, ma'am, none o' our folks is hurt, leastways far's we know now?-Marse Lafe, he rid off wid Gin'ral Johnston, not a scratch on him, praise de Lawd, an'-?" "Sedgwick?" "Marse Sedgwick ain' showed up yit, ma'am?-but ain' no call to git skeered `bout dat, `cause Gin'ral Stuart hisself ain' come by yit-? an' you know yo'self de Gin'ral ain' gwine to let nothin' happen to dat boy, ma'am-?" (Yankee Stranger, 18th printing, p. 138) And just to use the classic example, here's a passage from "Gone with the Wind:" "`Runned away?' answered Big sam. `No'm, us ain' runned away. Dey done sont an' tuck us, kase us wuz de fo' bigges' an' stronges' han's at Tara.' His white teeth showed proudly. `Dey specially sont fer me, kase Ah could sing so good. Yas'm, Mist' Frank Kennedy, he come by an' tuck us . Cose, Mis' Gerald might' nigh had a fit w'en dey tuck me, an' he say he kain run de place widout me. But Miss Ellen she say: "Tek him, Nist' Kennedy. De Confedrutsy need Big Sam mo' dan us do." An' she gib me a dollar an' tell me ter do jes' whut de w'ite gempmums tell me. So hyah us is.'" (Gone with the Wind, Mitchell, 1936. Avon books first printing, 1973, p. 301) That's one of many, many, many examples of dialect in GWtW. Compared to house-elf speak: "`And then Dobby had the idea, Harry Potter, sir! "Why doesn't Dobby and Winky find work together?" Dobby says. "Where is there enough work for two house-elves?" says Winky. And Dobby thinks, and it comes to him, sir! Hogwarts! So Dobby and Winky came to see Professor Dumbledore, sir, and Professor Dumbledore took us on!'" (GoF, ch. 21, British ed.) I can see that the house-elves have a dialect of their own, but I guess I'm missing something when it comes to a side-by-side comparison of Black American speech as represented in novels about the 19th Century, specifically the Civil War period. I never thought of it as a pidgin, per se, but simply as an attempt to make the house- elves seem childlike, to go along with their diminutive appearance. Incidentally, did anyone notice that Winky actually does refer to herself in the first person a few times, whereas Dobby never does? Do you think this indicates a difference between the two of them, either in education or treatment or some other status difference, or is it a Flint? Gwen From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Wed May 29 17:53:18 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:53:18 +0100 Subject: Remus isn't THAT nice - well..... References: Message-ID: <003701c20739$b712fb40$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 39155 > It may be an unpopular view, but I think Remus is the first sign we > have that Dumbledore doesn't always trust the right people. I also > think Snape was right in forcing his resignation at the end of GoF. > > Pip I think his strike rate with DDA teachers is low overall but we have no other teachers from other disciplines to compare Remus with. Think of Gilderoy Lockhart as one of Dumbledore's DDA teachers and what a * sad * end he (eventually) came to. Everyone thinks the DDA job is jinxed after a while (but still persist in saying Snape wants it more than anything...) even Moody turns out not to be Moody in GoF. I think Remus knows very well what he is capable of. Dumbledore * may * have made an error of judgement employing someone parents would think unsuitable * if they found out * - but until the Shrieking Shack incident Remus had not, as far as I remember, forgotten to take his regular potion and would, thus contained, caused no harm. Like many diseases - mental and physical - symptoms can be contained by medication (potions) > (who also thinks Human!Remus is very nice. But wouldn't like to live > with him.) Remus, as has been said before, is much tougher and edgier than he looks - but not - as has also been said before BAD. Life with the Lupins might not be that bad..... Felicia From megalynn44 at hotmail.com Wed May 29 18:00:47 2002 From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (Meghan Stancil) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:00:47 -0400 Subject: Read please Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39156 I got this from my dad and it turned out I did have the virus on my computer so I thought I better tell everyone on my list cause you probly have it now. MEGHAN :) >From: "Phillip A.Stancil" Reply-To: twrex1 at bellsouth.net To: Alica , >AllenDebra Brooks , Anne Langston , Annete and Harding , bob hussell , Bob >Hussle , Bolognaman Wood , Brandi , Brenda Hussle H , Carol Moore , Da >mumflies Lady , Dave Grow , David and Gerri Schmelding , Dena Simpson , >Elwood and Jo Lawrence , Frank Fincher , "Freeman, Daren" , Gary Vance >Nancy Lou and Lindsay Marie Washingtonjones , Jimmyand Phyllis Msvernon , >Joe & Judy Veale , John Blair Neblett , karen stancil , Karen Stancil , >Laramie Stancil , Loretta Sparks , Marcus Ledford , Mark Wood , Marsha , >Marty Kootz , Me myself , Meghan Stancil , "Michael E. Moore" , Michael >Moore , mjohnson , "Mohr, Sanda B." , MR FLGHM , "Mr. K" , Natashia& BORIS >, pollybobbyshow , Quinten Daulton , Ray Needham , ROBERT DUNCAN , Shane >dougherty , "support at bellsouth.net" , Susan hICKS , Tim Kelly ><8775752653 at airmessage.net>, tim tim , "twrex1 at bellsouth.net" , Tyler >The-Man , Uncle Paul , Union Hall Subject: Read please Date: Wed, 29 May >2002 13:43:09 -0400 > >Sorry Folks, But I may have delivered A virus from my address book to >yours. Norton and McAfee antivirus system will not catch it. It sits for 14 >days and then starts working damaging the computer. It's sent automatically >by the messenger and by the address book, whether or not you sent emails to >your contacts. Here's how to check for the virus and how to get rid of it: >DO THIS: 1. Go to Start, Find, or Search option. 2. In the files/folder >option, write the name jdbgmgr.exe 3. Be sure you search your C: drive 4. >Click "find now" 5. The virus has a teddy bear icon with the name >jdbgmgr.exe DO NOT OPEN IT 6. Right click and delete it. It will then go to >the Recycle Bin 7. Go to the recycle bin and delete it there as well. >IMPORTANT If you find the virus, you must contact all the people in your >address book so they can eradicate it in their own address books. Sorry >about this, Im sure everyone in my address book will have it. > >00 \/ Phillip > > > > _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From budgiwitch at yahoo.com Wed May 29 18:02:52 2002 From: budgiwitch at yahoo.com (budgiwitch) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:02:52 -0000 Subject: Read please (Virus Hoax) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39157 Fortunately, this one is a hoax. The teddy bear file is a normal Windows file. -Budgi --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Meghan Stancil" wrote: > > I got this from my dad and it turned out I did have the virus on my computer > so I thought I better tell everyone on my list cause you probly have it now. > > > > > MEGHAN :) > >From: "Phillip A.Stancil" Reply-To: twrex1 at b... To: Alica , > >AllenDebra Brooks , Anne Langston , Annete and Harding , bob hussell , Bob > >Hussle , Bolognaman Wood , Brandi , Brenda Hussle H , Carol Moore , Da > >mumflies Lady , Dave Grow , David and Gerri Schmelding , Dena Simpson , > >Elwood and Jo Lawrence , Frank Fincher , "Freeman, Daren" , Gary Vance > >Nancy Lou and Lindsay Marie Washingtonjones , Jimmyand Phyllis Msvernon , > >Joe & Judy Veale , John Blair Neblett , karen stancil , Karen Stancil , > >Laramie Stancil , Loretta Sparks , Marcus Ledford , Mark Wood , Marsha , > >Marty Kootz , Me myself , Meghan Stancil , "Michael E. Moore" , Michael > >Moore , mjohnson , "Mohr, Sanda B." , MR FLGHM , "Mr. K" , Natashia& BORIS > >, pollybobbyshow , Quinten Daulton , Ray Needham , ROBERT DUNCAN , Shane > >dougherty , "support at b..." , Susan hICKS , Tim Kelly > ><8775752653 at a...>, tim tim , "twrex1 at b..." , Tyler > >The-Man , Uncle Paul , Union Hall Subject: Read please Date: Wed, 29 May > >2002 13:43:09 -0400 > > > >Sorry Folks, But I may have delivered A virus from my address book to > >yours. Norton and McAfee antivirus system will not catch it. It sits for 14 > >days and then starts working damaging the computer. It's sent automatically > >by the messenger and by the address book, whether or not you sent emails to > >your contacts. Here's how to check for the virus and how to get rid of it: > >DO THIS: 1. Go to Start, Find, or Search option. 2. In the files/folder > >option, write the name jdbgmgr.exe 3. Be sure you search your C: drive 4. > >Click "find now" 5. The virus has a teddy bear icon with the name > >jdbgmgr.exe DO NOT OPEN IT 6. Right click and delete it. It will then go to > >the Recycle Bin 7. Go to the recycle bin and delete it there as well. > >IMPORTANT If you find the virus, you must contact all the people in your > >address book so they can eradicate it in their own address books. Sorry > >about this, I'm sure everyone in my address book will have it. > > > >00 \/ Phillip > > > > > > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: > http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx From kerelsen at quik.com Wed May 29 18:25:04 2002 From: kerelsen at quik.com (Bernadette M. Crumb) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:25:04 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Read please References: Message-ID: <003d01c2073e$28aeb420$3021b0d8@kerelsen> No: HPFGUIDX 39158 I hope the mods won't get mad at me for replying to this, but I checked this out on http://www.snopes.com and it's a HOAX. I've pasted their commentary below. DO NOT DELETE this file! Meghan, you probably want to tell your dad about this, too, so he can tell everyone he sent this to that it is NOT a virus... just a nasty prank that someone is playing on him and them. Quoted from snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/computer/virus/jdbgmgr.htm Origins: Like the SULFNBK.EXE hoax, this bogus virus warning (also known as the "Bear Virus") attempts to lure gullible users into deleting perfectly innocuous, standard Windows files from their systems. In this case the target file is JDBGMGR.EXE, a Java Debug Manager program used by the Microsoft Java runtime engine. It is included as part of a standard Windows installation, is not a virus, and should not be deleted. JDBGMGR.EXE isn't a necessary part of the Windows operating system and will not cause the system to fail if it is accidentally deleted, although some Java applets may not function properly without it. (The icon for this file is a graphic of a bear like the one shown to the left.) Windows 2000 and Windows ME include a Windows File Protection (WFP) feature that will recover shared files such as JDBGMGR.EXE if they are overwritten or deleted. Users of other Windows operating systems can retrieve JDBGMGR.EXE by reinstalling the Microsoft Virtual Machine (VM) component. See the link below for more information on and recovery procedures for JDBGMGR.EXE. Additional information: Microsoft Debugger Registrar for Java (Jdbgmgr.exe) Is Not a Virus (Microsoft) Last updated: 26 May 2002 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Meghan Stancil" > > I got this from my dad and it turned out I did have the virus on my computer > so I thought I better tell everyone on my list cause you probly have it now. > > > >Sorry Folks, But I may have delivered A virus from my address book to > >yours. Norton and McAfee antivirus system will not catch it. It sits for 14 > >days and then starts working damaging the computer. From cmf_usc at yahoo.com Wed May 29 18:15:18 2002 From: cmf_usc at yahoo.com (cmf_usc) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:15:18 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Stunning!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39159 Caroline unrolls the parchment delivered by Marina's owl. "If Harry has a shield, I think he should send it back to the manufacturers with an angry letter and make them fix it so that it works against Cruciatus. Otherwise the thing becomes pretty darn useless." Oh, this is Not Good. Caroline must Do Something, if she wants to be kept in icy cool drinks and suntan lotion. She squares her shoulders, ready to make Capt. Cindy proud. "Harry!" she shouts. Stoned!Harry wanders over dazedly. "Harry, we all know that, well, you've been known to do some pretty amazing things for a kid your age." Harry nods his agreement, admittedly looking a bit confused. "I mean," she adds, "blocking Avada Kedarva?speaking Parseltongue? astonishing aerial acrobatics?you don't see too many other young wizards doing these things, do you?" "But all of these things?well, you just sort of *did* them, didn't you? Spur of the moment? You didn't *know* AK was coming?you didn't *try* to talk to those snakes?you didn't really *think* before you jumped on that broom the first time, did you?" "And that spell Malfoy threw at you in second year, that you somehow blocked. You didn't know it was coming, because he attacked early, right?" Harry nods slowly. "So what I'm saying, Harry, is that your talents are *instinctive*. Probably a result of all that extra magical energy you've got going on, what with being Stoned and all." "Think about it. When do you have the most trouble with magic? When someone *tells* you that something's going to be difficult! Like summoning charms. Like patronus. Like when they look you straight in the eye and say "crucio!" Your instinctive talents don't help you then. Because your conscious mind is working, trying to take care of everything itself." Harry nods slowly, then speaks a remarkably coherent sentence. "So my shield... that's like my unconscious magical instincts trying to protect me?" Caroline beams. "Exactly! Like when you apparated to that roof. Like when you regrew your hair so you wouldn't be laughed at. Like when you banished that cushion without hardly trying." "Whoa, dude," Harry says thoughtfully. "That means, like, I do better when I *don't* study. Man, is Hermione going to be ticked." "Yes," Caroline agrees, "I think one day it really *will* bother her that you do better than she does at some things while putting in a lot less work. But that's a conversation for another day." Harry wanders off towards the bar, and Caroline settles down happily on her towel. She flips through some more owl post, stopping on LD's. "What I want to know is how did he get this strange shield in the first place? Was it the whole "mothers love" thing, or is it a special property of his mothers' emerald green eyes that JKR seems so keen on reminding us that Harry has?" Caroline laughs to herself, remembering those long-ago days when she was fooled by the Ever So Lame Mother's Love. She scribbles a quick invitation to LD?"check out message 38542; drop by and visit Stoned! Harry sometime"---and a note to herself "write post on magical eyes and the symbolism of the color green." "Oh, thanks," Caroline smiles at Harry, accepting a frothy green margarita from him. "I was *dying* for one of those." ***** Caroline, who doesn't know how to make fish ***** For an explanation of the acronyms and theories in this post, visit Hypothetic Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/files/Admin20Files/hypoth eticalley.htm and Inish Alley at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Wed May 29 18:43:21 2002 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (grey_wolf_c) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:43:21 -0000 Subject: Werewolves, silver and prior planning... In-Reply-To: <000b01c20733$08873380$3021b0d8@kerelsen> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39160 Bernadette wrote: > > > [Me & my daughter] were cleaning our good silver, the stuff you have > to polish to keep it from turning black, and she mentioned that Lupin > wouldn't be able to touch it because it's dangerous to werewolves. > And then I (not really thinking about it) said, "But if he doesn't > use silverware and has to have different types of eating > utensils and plates than everyone else, people are going to guess > his secret." > > Then my Ever-So-Smart!daughter pointed out that on Harry's first > day at Hogwarts we were told that the plates and flatware were > made of GOLD.... (Insert image of mom smacking self on forehead > with back of hand covered in soapsuds) > > So, does this count as another bit of evidence that JKR HAS been > setting bits in place to touch on in later books? > > 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). It could be. Then again, it could be simple casualty. I do hope, however, that when JKR told us about gold plates and stuff, she meant only decorations or at most a seath of gold, since gold is too maleable to use as either plates, knives or forks. Anyway, your comment made me realise that I don't think it has ever been explicitly said in the Pottervers that werewolves *in this particular reality* cannot touch silver. I know it's generally accepted that this is so, but I'd thought it would've been mentioned by now. Unfortunately, I'm not 100% sure of this, and since I've got a special "thing" for werewolves (Yes, I know, you'd never had guessed...), I'd love any view on this, specially if using canon. It has been said before, though, that Wormtail's brand new Silver Hand could be pointing at the destruction of Lupin. A fellow listee, however, pointed out that, in fact, we are never told that the hand is made form silver, only that it has a silver shine. In retrospect, it seems that when JKR introduces an already-existing creature into her world, she includes all the baggage it's normally asociated with it. On the other hand, werewolves in particular have several versions available, some of which make no mention to silver (others have no trouble with Aconite, and others don't fully transform, but go halfway into a terrible beast, etc.), and JKR *has* made exceptions (elves and goblins sort of leap to mind). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf, a werewolf at heart From pennylin at swbell.net Wed May 29 18:44:36 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 13:44:36 -0500 Subject: ADMIN: No Posting Virus Warnings to the Main List (or discussing them) Message-ID: <01ff01c20740$e1da59c0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 39161 Hi all -- A reminder that you should please contact the Mods offlist if you suspect you've been infected with a virus. We'll take care of checking it out to see if it's a legitimate problem or a hoax. We will, of course, also notify the list if there appears to be a problem that would affect everyone. This way, we can avoid a spate of messages on a non-HP-related topic. Thanks, Penny Magical Moderators From pennylin at swbell.net Wed May 29 20:41:16 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:41:16 -0500 Subject: FF/SHIP: Authorial Intent, Canonical Plausibility, Draco/Hermione; Draco is Ever so Evil References: Message-ID: <022001c20751$2e66ce30$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 39162 Hi -- As I told Elkins off-list, I've been debating how in the world to reply to her wonderful posts of last weekend without violating the "me too; what she said' rule. I think I've found a way to add a bit to the discussion, and I want to chime in before the posts go completely stale so .... AUTHORIAL INTENT -- So, I did a bit of internet sleuthing on "authorial intent" & literary theory as it's been far too long since I was a literature student in college (and I don't recall taking any literary theory courses per se anyway ... that would have been more graduate level study I suspect). I'm still no expert by any means, but I now know that I clearly, yes, indeed, *very* clearly, subscribe to the "reader-response" theory and am a post-structuralist. Hmm.. Yes, I didn't previously *know* those terms applied to my thoughts ... but there you have it. Elkins said (note, I've tried to snip as much as possible, but still retain the meat of those arguments I want to add to or respond to): <<< I'd go Penny one step further here. See, even if there *were* a "One True JKR Interpretation," I don't see why on earth any of us should allow knowing it to influence our reading of her text. Authors are very rarely the best interpreters of their own works, nor are their interpretations necessarily any more valid than anyone else's. Indeed, authors are often *notoriously* oblivious to the true import of what they themselves have written. Who cares how the author wants us to read her work? As far as I'm concerned, as soon as a written work is distributed, then the question of how it is to be read is out of the author's hands. Authors may indeed own the right to their works in the legal sense, but they do not own the rights to the reader's *interpretation* of their works, and they certainly have no power to dictate the reader's emotional response to what they have written. That is the inalienable right of the reader. Some people view this approach as hostile to the author. I do not consider it hostile to the author at all. I consider it *respectful* to the author. You see, the author already had the chance to affect the reader's interpretation of the text. She got that chance when she was writing the thing in the first place. She got to choose her plot, and her characters, and her dialogue, and even the very words by which all of those things were conveyed. We call that "writing," and *that* is the means by which writers go about dictating reader interpretation. Not through their interviews, and not through their authorized biographies. Through their *writing.*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, exactly. That's precisely what I've been trying, in my muddled way, to say in several iterations of this debate in the past. I completely reject the notion of authorial intent as the sole means of interpretation. I highly commend the following brief essay, which sets forth my thoughts almost exactly: http://mesastate.edu/~blaga/theoryindex/intentionx.html I particularly like this bit: " We know as well that texts can signify more than one thing, so it's unrealistic to assume that only one "right" meaning exists. What the author says about her own text is nothing more than a reader's response and therefore no more valid than another reader's response." See also -- http://www.brocku.ca/english/jlye/meaning.html Particularly -- Does the meaning exist 'in' the text? There is an argument that the formal properties of the text--the grammar, the language, the uses of image and so forth--contain and produce the meaning, so that any educated (competent) reader will inevitably come to essentially the same interpretation as any other. Of course, it becomes almost impossible to know whether the same interpretations are arrived at because the formal properties securely encode the meaning, or because all of the 'competent' readers were taught to read the formal properties of texts in roughly the same way. As a text is in a sense only ink-marks on a page, and as all meanings are culturally created and transferred, the argument that the meaning is 'in' the text is not a particularly persuasive one. I think this is the heart of the dispute that rages intermittently on the list with regard to issues where there is a wide divergence of opinion. I have strong issues with the "textual meaning" school of thought, under which I ought to be able to read "the words printed on the page" & come to the conclusion that Draco is a flat caricature who will never be redeemed. Someone who thinks the reader-response theory that I favor is a load of bunk will naturally come to the conclusion that I'm being a "resisting reader" in coming to my interpretation of Draco. That's okay. I think we should just acknowledge though that there are different ways of approaching literary interpretation. CANONICAL PLAUSIBILITY -- Elkins noted: <<< Well, you know, I work in a bookstore. And while I'm at work I often find myself eavesdropping on kids discussing the Potter books. And you know what? Adolescent boys 'ship. They do, they really do. And you know what adolescent boys like to talk about? Draco/Hermione. This notion that Draco likes Hermione isn't even discussed among them as if it's some wild and out-there speculation. They're not even bothering to *debate* that. They're just *assuming* it. To boys of around the same age as the books' protagonists, the notion that Draco has a crush on Hermione -- and that he has had since PoA, if not before -- seems to be a completely instinctive and unself-conscious reading of the text. >>>>>>>>>>>> And, I would add that teenage girls definitely ship, and while they are perhaps less uniform in their shipping preferences, many of them do ship H/H. Many of them don't see any evidence that Hermione returns Ron's feelings. And .... uh .... they *are* teenage girls, who might, just might, have some inkling of what teenage-girl Hermione is thinking. Of course, that brings us back to the authorial intent debate since there will be those who counter with "Well, but Rowling, for all her ability to put herself back 20 yrs or more in time, is no longer a teenage girl & may have had no intention of communicating that Hermione has a crush on Harry. She might have thought it obvious that she was setting up reciprocal R/H." But, as Elkins says, if the text supports both readings, and it does (IMO and as evidenced by the huge numbers of fans who ship R/H and the huge numbers who ship H/H), there ought not to be charges of "You're just not reading the words on the page; it's obvious, isn't it?" :--) To repeat Elkins again: <<>>>>>>>>> Turning to Draco is Ever So Lame -- <<< I do feel that Draco has been written in such a way as to encourage a good amount of reader sympathy, something that cannot be said for any of the series' other villain characters. Voldemort is not written as a sympathetic character in the least. Pettigrew is even less so. Crouch Jr. isn't either, and neither is Quirrell, and neither is Lockhart. Sure, SYCOPHANTS like me often do find these guys intensely sympathetic, but the general readership absolutely does not. The general readership *does,* however, tend to sympathize with Draco -- it's an incredibly popular and wide-spread reading -- and I can't help but feel that if JKR honestly didn't want for so many people to read him that way, then she made some *very* serious errors of judgement in how she chose to portray him in canon.>>>>>>>> Yes, it does seem that with Pettigrew, we the readers are meant to feel loathing ... or even sympathy in the sense of "Oh what a miserable person he is." Voldemort is written as just Evil Inviolate. Interesting that you lump Lockhart into the Villains category. I've always just thought that he was an unsympathetic character ... but not really villainous. Now that I think of it though, I suppose his willingness to abandon the boys in the Chamber (and Ginny!) is evil, villain-like behavior. Hmmm... I like how you've pointed up instances where JKR does clearly avoid the meta-textual underdog sympathies with other characters. This strengthens the argument that maybe, just maybe, JKR doesn't want to have Draco be a completely unsympathetic character. If he just has a small reservoir of potential reader sympathy ... that's enough. Anyway ... I definitely agree that JKR has used different signals with Draco, and I don't think this is all just a bunch of teenage girls picturing witty handsome Draco in leather pants. As Elkins notes, there are several possible scenarios for Draco, and the redemption angle is only one of several. But, it does seem that JKR has "more" in mind for Draco in some manner and just what remains to be seen. <<<>>>>>>>> Okay. I'll "fess up." I agree -- this is definitely true. Although I do wonder, as someone else mentioned, why it is that so many readers divide on the Snape & Sirius line? I fall into the Sirius camp... and I don't find Snape the least bit sexy. I don't like him either. I have respect for his complexity .... or at least his potential complexity. But, I don't like how he treats his students, esp. my beloved Hermione. So .... "hurt/comfort" holds no weight with me vis-a-vis Snape. <<<<>>>>>>>> How does Ron fit into this? Because I don't think he gets hurt so very much ... well, not if you ignore the times he was stunned while helping Harry practice hexes. << Yeah, I think that JKR knows what she's doing with that one. I think she knew full well that all the adolescent girls were just going to swoon in guilt-ridden sadistic crush-mode the second that she smacked poor Harry with all of that Cruciatus in the graveyard, and I think that she knew exactly what she was doing when she started beating out her tune on that "Harry can't cry" drum, too.>>>>>>>>> Oh, completely. And ... er... .maybe not just limited to adolescent girls either. :--) Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Wed May 29 21:26:48 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 14:26:48 -0700 Subject: Ron and hurt/comfort , a little bit of Snape and Sirius In-Reply-To: <022001c20751$2e66ce30$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> References: <022001c20751$2e66ce30$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: <199305356200.20020529142648@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39163 Hi, Wednesday, May 29, 2002, 1:41:16 PM, Penny wrote: > How does Ron fit into this? Because I don't think he gets hurt so very > much ... well, not if you ignore the times he was stunned while helping > Harry practice hexes. He gets bitten by a dragon and knocked unconscious at the end of the chess game in PS/SS. In the CoS there's the slug scene and the landing of the flying car. In PoA his leg is broken by Sirius and PP puts an unnamed kind of curse on him that sounds pretty serious. Can't think of much in Gof besides hurt feelings and the second task. There's plenty of h/c to go around for Ron, though JKR leaves out the comfort part a lot . Concerning Sirius and Snape, I don't really like either one of them, nor do I think they are sexy ;) -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Wed May 29 22:04:47 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:04:47 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] re: Voldemort and Quirrel (Short) In-Reply-To: <20020529134602.17860.qmail@web11105.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20020529134602.17860.qmail@web11105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6769580829.20020529150447@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39164 Wednesday, May 29, 2002, 6:46:02 AM, Maria wrote: M> Also, i wonder what kind of punishment Voldemort gave M> Quirrel when Harry heard them in the empty classroom (and he thought M> Snape was there too, wrongly). I keep getting this horrible image of Quirrel's hand (controlled by V) turning and pointing his wand at *himself* and V saying "Crucio!" -- I hope I don't have to go on... -- Dave From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Wed May 29 22:14:31 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 15:14:31 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Peeves In-Reply-To: <000001c206ae$d1521990$4cec6bd5@quack> References: <000001c206ae$d1521990$4cec6bd5@quack> Message-ID: <14170165001.20020529151431@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39165 These ideas about Peeves being in some way connected with Dumbledore are interesting, but here's the idea I have: We know Dumbledore is giving Snape "a second chance"... What if this is true of Peeves, and that's why he refuses to "kick Peeves out"? Does Peeves have a skeleton (or whatever a poltergeist would have) in his cupboard that will emerge in the next book, which we gather will have quite a bit about the ghosts? And why is Peeves so afraid of the Bloody Baron? -- Dave From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Wed May 29 19:18:09 2002 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 19:18:09 -0000 Subject: Cats Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39166 I have lurked here for months, but feel free to point me to past discussions I may have missed. Is it just me, or is something "up" with all the cats in the books? As I said, you all may have discussed this at length in the past, but it is something I have mulled over on my own. Crookshanks and Mrs. Norris are no ordinary cats. Arabella Figg has cats, McGonagall transfigures into a cat. Is there something here that I am missing? Or are they just cats? I would be very interested to hear your theories on this..... Alora From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Wed May 29 19:53:56 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 19:53:56 -0000 Subject: Remus isn't THAT nice - well.....(and Marauders) In-Reply-To: <003701c20739$b712fb40$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39167 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" wrote: Pip said: > > It may be an unpopular view, but I think Remus is the first sign we > > have that Dumbledore doesn't always trust the right people. I also > > think Snape was right in forcing his resignation at the end of GoF. > > > > Pip Felicia replied: > I think his strike rate with DDA teachers is low overall but we have no > other teachers from other disciplines to compare Remus with. Think of > Gilderoy Lockhart as one of Dumbledore's DDA teachers and what a * sad * end > he (eventually) came to. Everyone thinks the DDA job is jinxed after a > while (but still persist in saying Snape wants it more than anything...) > even Moody turns out not to be Moody in GoF. True. Dumbledore's strike rate with DDA is dreadful. But I do think that unlike Quirrell and Lockhart, who were simply employed as teachers, employing a *potentially* dangerous known werewolf did require a high level of trust - and that this is the first time we see Dumbledore being let down by someone he trusts. Snape, as ever, is wrong in detail but right in outline. Remus is not trustworthy. Quote from PoA, UK hardback. "I sometimes felt guilty about betraying Dumbledore's trust ... he had no idea I was breaking the rules he had laid down for my own and others' safety..." P. 260 (Remus). > > I think Remus knows very well what he is capable of. Dumbledore * may * > have made an error of judgement employing someone parents would think > unsuitable * if they found out * - but until the Shrieking Shack incident > Remus had not, as far as I remember, forgotten to take his regular potion > and would, thus contained, caused no harm. Some quotes from PoA, UK hardback. "The door opened, and in came Snape. He was carrying a goblet..." P.117 "I've just been to your office, Lupin. You forgot to take your potion tonight, so I took a gobletful along..." P. 263 (Snape) Looks rather as if there was no way Snape was going to *let* Remus forget his potion. > Like many diseases - mental and > physical - symptoms can be contained by medication (potions) Of course they can. *If* the patient accepts that they are ill and so remembers to take the medication. Which can be a very serious problem indeed. > Pip says: > > (who also thinks Human!Remus is very nice. But wouldn't like to live > > with him.) > Felicia replies: > Remus, as has been said before, is much tougher and edgier than he looks - > but not - as has also been said before BAD. Life with the Lupins might not > be that bad..... > Oh, I don't think Remus is BAD. I have a little theory (well, as you've probably all gathered by now, I have lots of little theories. Some of them might even be new [grin]) that all the Marauders had some basic character flaw, and that one of the effects Harry is having is to make them face that and overcome it. James is described as arrogant. Currently unfinished and truth factor still uncertain (it's mainly Snape's evidence) - we don't know if he overcame that before he died. Remus doesn't accept he's dangerous (but does at the end of PoA). Peter betrays his friends to save his life (currently unfinished). Sirius - well, pre-Harry Sirius isn't exactly *brave*, is he? But he's learning. Pip (Who thinks that if Sirius was genuinely brave instead of only sportsjock brave he'd have faced Teenage!Snape himself and not shoved being Secret Keeper onto snivelling little Peter). From nee1 at worldnet.att.net Wed May 29 21:11:53 2002 From: nee1 at worldnet.att.net (Renee Gunn) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 16:11:53 -0500 Subject: silver and werewolves References: Message-ID: <001501c20755$75f1f140$ac7afea9@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 39168 I did a little research and I don't think that eating off of a silver plate or with silver utensils would necessarily kill Lupin or harm him severly. Perhaps the utensil since he would have to pick it up, but according to www.werewolfregistry.net this is what they say about werewolves and silver (and wolfsbane)What about silver and wolfsbane? Silver and wolfsbane are the two known substances that werewolves are allergic to. It has long been believed that a silver bullet is the only device that will kill a werewolf. In reality, you would have to use a dozen or so silver bullets for it to be of a great effect. Silver does make the werewolf ill and will leave a mark on the skin, but it will only kill them if applied in great doses. Wolfbane, however, is a true killer for both the werewolf and the normal human. It comes from the flowering Aconitum branch and is also referred to as monkshood. Warriors used to apply a drop of the poison to the tips of their arrows for lethality. Sorcerers of old were often called upon to mix potions containing wolfsbane for people wishing to transform into a werewolf. The potion would have to be prepared cautiously or certain death would have resulted. It is believed that these potions would have crated a hallucinogenic effect that might have caused one to believe they were indeed shape shifting into a wolf. Nee From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed May 29 22:37:23 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 22:37:23 -0000 Subject: DADA teachers (was Re: Remus isn't THAT nice - well..... In-Reply-To: <003701c20739$b712fb40$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39169 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Felicia Rickmann" wrote: > I think his strike rate with DDA teachers is low overall but we have no > other teachers from other disciplines to compare Remus with. Think of > Gilderoy Lockhart as one of Dumbledore's DDA teachers and what a * sad * end > he (eventually) came to. Just how important does Dumbledore consider DADA to be? It sounds like an important subject to teach in the difficult times, but is it really? It looks like someone who is competent in other magical subjects could achieve almost on his own. Transfigure things into suitable weapons, use suitable charms and you should be fine. Just look at the other mandatory subjects: Charms, Transfiguration, Herbology, Potions - they are all taught by competent teachers who had been in Hogwarts for a long time. (Probably Astronomy also belongs to this group, we just do not now enough yet). DADA in that aspect is more like Divination, or Care of Magical Creatures, or History - where Dumbledore does not mind employing frauds or incompetent teachers (Sorry to all the Hagrid fans - he is a good man but a horrible teacher). (I wonder if Binns has a fan club? ;-) Irene From megalynn44 at hotmail.com Wed May 29 23:14:09 2002 From: megalynn44 at hotmail.com (Meghan Stancil) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 19:14:09 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Read please (apology) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39170 Budgi writes: >Fortunately, this one is a hoax. The teddy bear file is a normal >Windows file. >-Budgi I wanted to apologize for sending that. I usually don't pay attention to forwards but my dad is ussually a good source to rely on. I had forgotten I had saved the HP4G address when I hit all addresses. Sorry Megs _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Wed May 29 23:18:57 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 23:18:57 -0000 Subject: FF/SHIP: Authorial Intent, Canonical Plausibility, Draco/Hermione; Draco is Ever so Evil In-Reply-To: <022001c20751$2e66ce30$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39171 Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > I completely reject the notion of authorial intent as the sole means of interpretation. I highly commend the following brief essay, which sets forth my thoughts almost exactly: > > http://mesastate.edu/~blaga/theoryindex/intentionx.html > > I particularly like this bit: > > " We know as well that texts can signify more than one thing, so it's unrealistic to assume that only > one "right" meaning exists. What the author says about her own text is nothing more than a reader's response and therefore no more valid than another reader's response." > > See also -- > > http://www.brocku.ca/english/jlye/meaning.html > > Particularly -- > Does the meaning exist 'in' the text? As a text is in a sense only ink-marks on a page, and as all meanings are culturally created and transferred, the argument that the meaning is 'in' the text is not a particularly persuasive one. > > I think this is the heart of the dispute that rages intermittently on the list with regard to issues where there is a wide divergence of opinion. I have strong issues with the "textual meaning" school of thought, under which I ought to be able to read "the words printed on the page" & come to the conclusion that Draco is a flat caricature who will never be redeemed. Someone who thinks the reader-response theory that I favor is a load of bunk will naturally come to the conclusion that I'm being a "resisting reader" in coming to my interpretation of Draco. That's okay. I think we should just acknowledge though that there are different ways of approaching literary interpretation. David now: I do agree with Elkins and Penny on this (and on Draco). But I also agree with Jim Ferer, who wrote: >I think it's perfectly fair for [readers] to infer what the author's intent is, so long as they can defend their view. We try facts all the time based on a preponderance of the evidence. (And end up wrong much of the time). It's also fair to criticize a fic if it seems too far off JKR's intent to be believeable. What does it mean, and how is it possible to say, that (say) 'Dumbledore is evil' is an unlikely reading of canon, or a perverse one? How can we say that a given interpretation is 'subversive'? If I assert that the reading you find subversive is my instinctive reading (something of the sort must occur on the R/H - H/H divide, I think), are you reduced to saying 'fine for you, David', or have you any rational basis for persuading me different? The above thinking does not bother me very much as far as Harry Potter is concerned, but I think it has the potential for making me feel very lost and alone if it is applied to speaking, writing, and reading outside fiction. For example, I am starting to wonder if I am sure I have interpreted Penny's, Elkins', and Jim's posts 'correctly' (if there *is* a 'correctly') - perhaps my interpretation of their writings is completely disconnected from theirs. Any answers? Is anybody out there? David From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Wed May 29 23:35:19 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (irene_mikhlin) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 23:35:19 -0000 Subject: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame In-Reply-To: <002401c20664$4ec67380$934053d1@DJF30D11> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39172 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grace Saalsaa" wrote: > In CoS, (book not in front of me) it says Draco is Snape's favorite student. And why would that be? References are made to Snape's ability to be very astute when he's reading Harry or putting a sequence of events together that leads to Harry being involved somehow. If he's that sharp, then what does he see in Draco? I doubt that Snape sees Draco as the most fantastic kid in the school - and he can't be so blindly loyal to his House that only Draco appeals to him. So what does Draco have the catches Snape attention? Assuming that Draco is not totally stupid, may be he is just genuinely interested in potions? After all, Snape appears to be an adequate teacher, who is passionate about his subject. The only reason Gryffindors do not enjoy Potions does not apply to Draco. So it's not too far-fetched for Draco to be Snape's favourite student just because he is good at his subject. Irene From foxmoth at qnet.com Wed May 29 23:35:42 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 23:35:42 -0000 Subject: Poor ickle Ronniekins was re:FF/SHIP: Authorial Intent, In-Reply-To: <022001c20751$2e66ce30$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39173 Elkins wrote: > <<<< hurt a lot. They just are. And Draco does get smacked around a > *lot* in these books. He gets ferret-bounced and hippogriff-slashed > and pimp-slapped and seriously hexed. And that's just the sort of > thing that female readers -- and particularly adolescent girls -- > really go for. It's why they think Harry's so sexy too, I'd > warrant. It's because they're twisted little FEATHERBOA wearers, > each and every one of them.>>>>>>>>> > Penny: > How does Ron fit into this? Because I don't think he gets hurt so very much ... well, not if you ignore the times he was stunned while helping Harry practice hexes. > Poor ickle Ronniekins...not only does he suffer, but his suffering goes ignored. He gets bitten by Norbert. PS/SS He gets bashed unconscious in the chess game. PS/SS He belches slugs and gets scared spitless by spiders CoS He has to clean bedpans. PoA He loses his pet. PoA His leg is broken. PoA. He looks ridiculous in his dress robes. GoF He has a whole year of angst over Harry, Sirius and Hermione. GoF The girl he fancies goes to the ball with someone else. GoF He hates being poor. GoF He gets painfully stunned multiple times I notice he doesn't seem to get hurt as much in GoF, or rather that his pangs are more psychological than physical, while in GoF we see Draco in physical pain for the first time. (We're told that Ron gave him a black eye in SS/PS but we don't see it.) Hmmm. I can't help but feel, you know, that Ron appeals to a more mature taste (assuming he grows out of the jealousy thing), as he's a character that can give comfort as well as receive it. When did Draco ever comfort anyone? Pippin From Zarleycat at aol.com Thu May 30 00:39:08 2002 From: Zarleycat at aol.com (kiricat2001) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 00:39:08 -0000 Subject: Werewolves, silver and prior planning... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39174 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "grey_wolf_c" wrote: > Bernadette wrote: > > > > > > [Me & my daughter] were cleaning our good silver and she mentioned that Lupin > > wouldn't be able to touch it because it's dangerous to werewolves. > > Then my Ever-So-Smart!daughter pointed out that on Harry's first > > day at Hogwarts we were told that the plates and flatware were > > made of GOLD. > > So, does this count as another bit of evidence that JKR HAS been > > setting bits in place to touch on in later books? > > > > It could be. Then again, it could be simple casualty. > Anyway, your comment made me realise that I don't think it has ever > been explicitly said in the Pottervers that werewolves *in this > particular reality* cannot touch silver. I know it's generally accepted > that this is so, but I'd thought it would've been mentioned by now. > > It has been said before, though, that Wormtail's brand new Silver Hand > could be pointing at the destruction of Lupin. A fellow listee, > however, pointed out that, in fact, we are never told that the hand is > made form silver, only that it has a silver shine. > We also know from canon that sickles are silver. Are we to assume that is their color and they are made from some sort of alloy, or are they made of actual silver? If they are indeed silver, then I'd assume that werewolves in Potterverse don't exhibit the allergic reaction to silver, or else Remus would have trouble handling his own money. Unless he dons gloves whenever he goes to the store... Marianne From jferer at yahoo.com Thu May 30 02:40:34 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 02:40:34 -0000 Subject: Remus isn't THAT nice In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39175 Pip:"It may be an unpopular view, but I think Remus is the first sign we have that Dumbledore doesn't always trust the right people. I also think Snape was right in forcing his resignation at the end of GoF." I have to say at the outset I didn't like your take on this. You seem to expect Remus to operate under tremendous stress in a way that people under stress just don't behave. Imagine the shock to find out that Peter Pettigrew is *alive*! The danger the Trio was under! His first thought was to get there as fast as possible. "...Muffled footsteps were echoing up through the floor -- someone was moving downstairs. "WE'RE UP HERE!" Hermione screamed suddenly. "WE'RE UP HERE -- SIRIUS BLACK - QUICK!" Remember, Sirius is still a mad killer in everybody's eyes. Pip:"If Remus truly believed that he was a monstrous killer while werewolf, then the FIRST thing he would have done on seeing Peter Petigrew's name on the map would have been to think 'Arggh! It's a full moon', run like heck to Snape's office and ask 'is that potion ready?' and THEN go after Peter. Instead he forgets, transforms, nearly kills the Trio, lets Peter escape and ruins Sirius's chance of freedom." I wish I knew all the factors and everything that would happen before I acted, but I don't, and I wish I thought ahead that well in times of stress, but I don't, and dealing with emergencies is part of what I do for work. You expect more than humans can deliver as if they'd do it if they cared. Like Harry, Remus is a man of action. The Hermiones of the world, who research, think, plan, and then think again, are really important, but sometimes you just have to move your a** and hope for the best. (One of the reasons Hermiones are important is that they prepare the Harrys of the world for their trials.) Pip:"I see Remus as someone who is in deep denial about how dangerous he really is as a werewolf. That's why he allows himself to play around with the Maurauders whilst a werewolf, that's why he accepts a job in a school full of children who don't know how to defend themselves against a werewolf, that's why he forgets to take his potion." How good was your judgement as a teenager? Mine left something to be desired. My brother and I used to climb signal towers and look down at the trains passing underneath. Now I'm a safety manager. Remus had friends for the first time in his life, a force so powerful for a lonely and despised boy it is irresistible. Remus accepts the job as a teacher because he's good at it and needs a job badly, and with the potion, which he takes faithfully until he's under enormous stress, he can perform his teaching duties well and safely. You say "forget" like Remus was a homeless TB case who sells his INH pills or an HIV patient who doesn't follow the regimen. Remus didn't exactly blow it off while leafing through the _Daily Prophet_. I know who I'd rather have for a teacher. From elfundeb at aol.com Thu May 30 03:28:04 2002 From: elfundeb at aol.com (elfundeb at aol.com) Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 23:28:04 EDT Subject: Official Philip Nel Question #9: House Elves (include... Message-ID: <14c.e9240be.2a26f644@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39176 My take on the House-Elf issue. It's not directly responsive to Gwen's latest, because I wrote most of it before reading hers, but it reflects a different POV. Please insert a large IMO at the beginning of each sentence that does not contain a chapter reference. The central debate seems to center around one question of interpretation: Are the house-elves meant to be taken as literal beings, or are they meant to represent a metaphor for something? It's very interesting that the House-Elf debate has centered around identifying a specific metaphor for them, because I don't think a specific metaphor was ever intended. The House-Elves are repeatedly described as "enslaved" in the text of CoS and GoF. Dobby uses the word enslavement to describe his own condition, e.g. in CoS ch. 10 where he says his pillowcase is "a mark of the house-elf's enslavement." The very fact that JKR chose to use that word to describe the House-Elves' status tells me that they are very much intended as a metaphor for the enslaved or oppressed. Enslavement is such a loaded term - at least here in the US - that it's hard for many of us to accept a non-metaphoric reading. But what enslaved group they might represent has, IMO, been left up to the reader. The details JKR includes in her description of the House-Elves allows us to identify them, according to our own experiences, with the oppressed group of our choice. They in some ways suggest legally enslaved African Americans, based on their use of what appears to be a corrupted form of English and the fact that House-Elves are legally bound to their masters. Or we can see them, as Amy Z does, as a metaphor for.housewives (this is my personal favorite), based on a number of factors, including the similarity of the names, the fact that the primary duties of House-Elves seem to consist of housework and cooking - leaving heavy janitorial work at Hogwarts to Filch, who is a paid employee, and their other important role as secret-keepers for their masters (at one time wives were considered incompetent to testify against their husbands in trials). Still others see them as a metaphor for the class system (like a good servant, the mark of a good house-elf is that he is not seen, and Winky worries that Dobby has ideas above his station (GoF ch.8)). I think all of them are valid. None of these, IMO, is a perfect metaphor, once you dig beneath the surface, as much of the debate here has demonstrated. Part of the problem is that House-Elves, unlike other enslaved groups, have obvious powers that set them apart from, and perhaps ahead of, general wizarding society. But I don't think the metaphor needs to be perfect in order to be effective - in fact it is more powerful, and less generationally limiting, to present enslavement as a generic concept instead of one tied to a particular group. By giving the house-elves features that reflect some characteristics of a number of enslaved or oppressed groups (for example, differentiated speech patterns), JKR allows us to read in oppressed groups that she perhaps did not have in mind and that are not mentioned here (or to read out others). If the HP novels endorse subjugation of the house elves, do they endorse enslavement? Or should we instead see Rowling as recognizing the limitations of social reform? Are we supposed to be outraged or sympathetic to George Weasley's statement that the house elves are happy (GoF, pg 211)? A related point: Hermione says that the house elves have been brainwashed into accepting their jobs. Should we agree with her? Do we see the means through which the elves are brainwashed? I don't think the books endorse slavery. But, as others have pointed out, it's very difficult to free slaves who don't want to be freed and may be unable to cope with it. Moreover, we have no information on the cause or the means of the house-elves' enslavement; without that, it's impossible to determine how to help them. Hermione states that she researched the topic thoroughly (GoF ch. 14) but doesn't tell us anything except that elf enslavement "goes back centuries." It's not clear that she understands their enslavement, either. I'm not at all convinced by the suggestion that house-elves must use their magic in service of others or lose it. To me, the simple fact that the text describes their condition as enslavement leads me to believe this is not the case. Perhaps the house-elves were enslaved because their magical powers were perceived as threatening by the WW. Even if that's the case, a simple grant of civil rights to them is not an effective solution because the psychological dependency that seems to result from enslavement has robbed House-Elves of the inclination to think for themselves. However, I think it's more likely that house-elves do have some kind of vulnerability that in combination with their magical powers makes them attractive targets for enslavement. Their apparent need to work and serve (evidenced by Dobby's refusal of much of the offered salary and days off) and be useful is an obvious characteristic that can be exploited. In addition, they are presented as childlike, or even doll-like - both in their physical descriptions, which emphasize their small stature, big tennis ball eyes, and in their childlike gratitude for small favors. Hermione suggests that house-elves are in special need of protection by stating (in GoF, ch. 24) that goblins, unlike house-elves, don't need protection because they're clever; that could be read as a patronizing comment about the house-elves' simplicity (though I'm not convinced she knows what she's talking about). I think it's very possible that the house-elves' current condition of servitude is the result of a magical contract entered into between the house-elves and wealthy wizards with castles and manor-houses; house-elves pledged themselves use their magic solely to serve their master or house in exchange for lifetime care and protection. If a house-elf failed to serve his master properly, under the magical contract the elf would be forced to punish himself. This explains why Dobby feels compelled to punish himself, even when his master is absent. To seal the bargain, they relinquished their clothes, to be returned upon termination of the contract. I envision this having developed perhaps in the same way the feudal system developed: the lord provided protection for the populace in exchange for service. Perhaps the deal appeared benevolent to the house-elves at the time. But, of course, the contract turned out to be a devil's bargain. Why? Power is inherently corruptive. The role of protector carries with it an enormous responsibility to uphold the trust that comes with surrendering to the protector; it also offers the protector the temptation of exploitation. Thus, over the centuries, the effect of the power is the institutionalization of repression and abuse in the name of tradition, long after the the reason for the contract's existence - the master's commitment to protect the servant - has been forgotten. This is reflected, for example, in the reduction of people protected under the feudal system over the centuries to serfs who become tied to the land. If this is the case, then pay and vacations are worthless. The magical contract itself, or whatever binds the elves in slavery, has outlived its usefulness and must be broken. However, we know that freedom is useless unless (the hard part) they have the ability and the means to exercise it. Dobby's experience shows that at this point there is little for a free house-elf to do unless the elf is trained for another profession; people don't want to pay for housework. (And we don't know if they're suited for or able to undertake anything else than what they do now.) Consider the positions on elf rights taken by Ron, George, Mr. Weasley, Dobby, Winky, Hermione, Sirius Black and Harry. With whom are our sympathies supposed to lie? IMO, House-elf enslavement has become so entrenched in the WW that even families like the Weasleys, that display sensitivity toward Muggles, seem to accept the house-elf system status quo without question, and with very little attention (except for Arthur) to even simple questions such as whether the house-elves are being abused. Ron, for example, has confused Winky's desire to work hard and exhibit loyalty to her master with liking enslavement. It's not even clear when Arthur tells Hermione he agrees with her what his actual position is on elf rights, because the context was Winky's mistreatment. Does he support freedom for house-elves, or does he merely mean that they should be treated with dignity and respect and not abused? I don't know. And if the latter, does that reflect acceptance of their slavery or merely an acknowledgement that freedom at this time would be a disservice to the elves? Having lived lives of dependence, they can't simply go job-hunting. As happened with the end of slavery in the U.S., too many slaves will end up in their old positions, with formal slavery having been exchanged merely for the quasi-slavery of the sharecropper. And what about Dumbledore? He deserves credit for his willingness to hire and pay Dobby and Winky. There is plenty of evidence to show that the Hogwarts house-elves are well-treated. Their tea-towels (unlike Dobby's old pillowcase) are crisp and clean. (GoF ch. 21) None of the elves in the Hogwarts kitchens are banging their heads on the oven doors. In fact, they are "beaming, bowing and curtsying." With the exception of Winky, they seem quite satisfied with their lot. Thus, George Weasley's statement that they're happy may be accurate. So why would they even want freedom, when they have everything they need or want at Hogwarts, while look at what Hermione is offering. She tells them, "You've got just as much right as wizards to be unhappy! You've got the right to wages and holidays and proper clothes . . . ." (GoF ch. 28, p. 538 US) But even Dumbledore doesn't give them their freedom, which is telling. Though I think Dumbledore is biding his time and wants to free them when the time is right. Why else would his greatest desire be for socks, the symbol of Dobby's freedom and by extension, freedom for all House-Elves? One last point. Gwen asked: > Incidentally, did anyone notice that Winky actually does refer to > herself in the first person a few times, whereas Dobby never does? Do > you think this indicates a difference between the two of them, either > in education or treatment or some other status difference, or is it a > Flint? > In CoS, ch. 2, Dobby states, "Sometimes they reminds *me* to do extra punishments." But I think it's a Flint. Winky's slip-ups may not be Flints. She may be so distraught that she forgets. <@ /___ (The copyright to this L.O.O.N.* belongs to Dicentra, who graciously loaned it to me.) Debbie, who will be sending Dumbledore socks this Christmas *League Of Obsessive Nitpickers [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dicentra at xmission.com Thu May 30 03:53:11 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 03:53:11 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Remus isn't THAT nice - well.....(and Marauders) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39177 Dicentra is kneeling on the deck of the Big Bang, furiously scrubbing the surface with an old toothbrush. Cindy swaggers by from time to time to examine her work. "You missed a spot," she inevitably sneers as she points at a *perfectly clean spot* with the jagged end of the broken paddle. Dicentra is not the only unlucky Big Bang denizen forced to scrub the deck thusly: Pip is not 20 feet from her, and not much farther on is Felicia. They're engaged in conversation about some insignificant thing -- Lupin or whatever -- when Pip says something that catches Dicentra's ear: "Oh, I don't think Remus is BAD. I have a little theory that all the Marauders had some basic character flaw, and that one of the effects Harry is having is to make them face that and overcome it." Dicentra sits up. This could be interesting... "James is described as arrogant," Pip continues. "Currently unfinished and truth factor still uncertain (it's mainly Snape's evidence) -- we don't know if he overcame that before he died. Remus doesn't accept he's dangerous (but does at the end of PoA). Peter betrays his friends to save his life (currently unfinished). Sirius -- well, pre-Harry Sirius isn't exactly *brave*, is he? But he's learning." "He what?" Dicentra interrupts. She stands and puts her hands on her hips. "What do you mean he isn't *brave*?" Pip, not knowing what she's getting herself into, responds, "If Sirius was genuinely brave instead of only sportsjock brave he'd have faced Teenage!Snape himself and not shoved being Secret Keeper onto snivelling little Peter." "Oh, that will *not* go unanswered," Dicentra begins to mutter, teeth clenched. She walks over to Pip, grabs her by the collar and pulls her up. "Cindy we have a matter to resolve onshore can we go thanks so much," she calls out, knowing that Cindy is on the other side of the ship and can't hear her. Then she turns to a kid who is sitting on deck, playing with his toes. "Harry! Can we have a ride onshore?" Dicentra jerks her head toward the beach. Stoned!Harry obligingly pulls out his wand. A jet of silver sparks hits their feet and they're launched headlong onto the beach, where they land, sprawled out, faces covered with sand. "Last time, he made a pontoon bridge," Dicentra spat, as the sand flew from her mouth. She grabs Pip by the arm in a startlingly strong grip before she can get away and drags her toward the museum. Pip, too startled to protest, allows herself to be led. Dicentra stalks through the museum to the stairs, and takes Pip to the third floor. She guides her over to the dioramas and stops in front of the one labelled "Shrieking Shack." It's one of the larger dioramas, consisting of a dusty room with a four-poster bed and mannequins of Ron and Sirius. "Let's fast-forward this a couple chapters," murmurs Dicentra. She turns a wheel near the diorama and the action procedes fast-forward: Harry and Hermione arrive, then Lupin, then there's a bunch of talking, then Snape shows up (and is soon on the floor) and there's more talking, then Peter appears. Dicentra quits turning the wheel. The action freezes. "Listen to this," she says, as she punches a white button with her thumb. The sound comes on. Sirius is talking to Sniveling!Peter. "Lily and James only made you Secret-Keeper because I suggested it," Black hissed, so venemously that Pettigrew took a step backward. "I thought it was the perfect plan...a bluff.... Voldemort would be sure to come after me, would never dream they'd use a weak, talentless thing like you...." Dicentra pushes the button again and the action freezes. "Did you hear that? Sirius suggested they make Peter the Secret-Keeper, knowing that Voldemort would go after Sirius himself. Sirius was planning to take whatever torture Voldemort wanted to dish out, but since he's not the Secret-Keeper, Voldemort can't get any information out of him. Turning yourself into a decoy to lure Voldemort from your friends isn't my idea of cowardice!" Dicentra has worked herself up into a lather, as usual. "Furthermore, we don't know that Sirius played sports at all, so I don't know where 'sports-jock' brave comes from." Pip has to take a couple of steps backward to avoid the spit flying from Dicentra's mouth. "If Sirius has a flaw, it's that he's overconfident about his own cleverness. He's sure his plan will work -- so sure he has no problem convincing James and Lily. But he was wrong. And he's equally sure he can capture Peter single-handedly and kill the Rat, but Peter outsmarted him and framed him instead. And THEN he tries to catch Peter again, alone, and Peter gets away again." Dicentra is breathing hard, as if she's been running. "Well, OK," says Pip. "Calm down, it's not such a big deal. On to the next point. What about facing teen-aged Snape himself? Why didn't he just settle things like a man instead of sending him down..." But Dicentra lays an index finger on Pip's mouth. "Don't. Mention. That. Incident. Ever. Again." she snarls. "This list has discussed you-know-what far too many times. Don't get us started again." Dicentra stalks off, still fuming. Pip, truly bewildered, shrugs her shoulders and makes her way out of the museum. "Geez, that was an awful lot of setup for such a little idea," she observes. Dicentra, who didn't hear Pip, wades into Theory Bay up to her armpits and swims over to the Big Bang. As she hoists herself up onto the deck, she sees Cindy standing over her, arms crossed and toe tapping. "She said Sirius was a coward!" Dicentra protests. "I had to straighten her out!" Cindy kicks the toothbrush toward her and gives Dicentra a look that she can't possibly misread. "OK! I'll get back to it." As she recommences scrubbing, Dicentra remembers there's a thread about House-Elves going on somewhere, and she vows to go there. "I've got me some real-life experience with that," she glowers. "Anything to get away from this..." --Dicentra, who will walk a mile to defend Sirius's honor From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu May 30 07:41:11 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 07:41:11 -0000 Subject: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39178 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "irene_mikhlin" wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Grace Saalsaa" wrote: > > > In CoS, (book not in front of me) it says Draco is Snape's favorite > student. And why would that be? References are made to Snape's > ability to be very astute when he's reading Harry or putting a > sequence of events together that leads to Harry being involved > somehow. If he's that sharp, then what does he see in Draco? I > doubt that Snape sees Draco as the most fantastic kid in the school - > and he can't be so blindly loyal to his House that only Draco appeals > to him. So what does Draco have the catches Snape attention? > > Assuming that Draco is not totally stupid, may be he is just > genuinely interested in potions? After all, Snape appears to be an > adequate teacher, who is passionate about his subject. The only > reason Gryffindors do not enjoy Potions does not apply to Draco. So > it's not too far-fetched for Draco to be Snape's favourite student > just because he is good at his subject. > > Irene Uh, well, that won't work, 'cause Hermione is a better studnet than Draco (in potions, as well as in everything else) and she's hardly a favorite, is she? Naama From pollux46 at hotmail.com Thu May 30 10:20:21 2002 From: pollux46 at hotmail.com (charisjulia) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:20:21 -0000 Subject: TBAY: MACHINGARMCHAIR nad the Ever So Frustrating Egg Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39179 Eloise quoted me saying: > "Neville," Charis concludes happily closing the book with a snap, "has Post?Traumatic Stress >Disorder! He's Spell?Shocked." > > > Sooooo, every loud noise makes his mind leap automatically to the > Cruciatus. He can't help it. And especially after that nice little > reminder of his parents torment courtesy of Monsieur Crouch which > made all those old memories resurface with a vengeance. > > > Of course this theory only works if Neville is * not* under a Memory > And then she countered: >OTOH, I'm not so sure about this. > >But what chiefly intrigues me is at what level the memory is wiped. In fact, >*is* it wiped, or merely suppressed? >If memory charms merely *suppress* memory, then Neville might not be affected >on a day-to-day basis by the trauma he suffered as an infant, yet it might be >re-awakened in his subconscious by something such as the egg's wailing. > Hmmm, well, no, sorry, I'm going to have to remain adamant here. The idea the Neville is labouring under some kind of state of shock can only work if we assume that he does in fact have a very clear memory of the night his parents were Crucio?ed. If he doesn't, well, very simply he doesn't have anything to be shocked * about*. I mean, what? Did Neville just suddenly get a subconscious blast when he heard the egg, leading to some kind of a Freudian slip so that he inadvertently blurts out "It was someone being tortured!" and them recovers and goes "Gee, did I just say that? Huh, fancy that! Where * do* I come up with these crazy ideas? Oy, you there, hand me another one of them custard creams will you?" Errr, though, actually this is exactly what he does do, isn't it? Ooops. Huh. Ah, but the point still holds. If Neville does not have any memory of the incident because of the Memory Charm set on him or whatever, then his reaction would not be such an emotional one neither in Moody's class nor at the Gryffindor common room. When seeing the spider one would expect him to be * less* affected than Harry, who at least has green light and screaming, and when hearing the wailing he might?if his subconscious * did* kick in (and why should it if we are all in agreement that the egg does * not* sound like people under Crucio) ? he might halt a sec, sausage held midair, he might tilt his head slightly sideways and raise his eyebrows in mild curiosity, he might think "Now * where* did that sinking feeling come on from?", but he needn't go around blanching and dropping food. That just doesn't work for me. It somehow would seem excessive. OTOH, if you've got your Neville with a strong Memory Potion seeping through his veins, far from being excessive, his behaviour is restrained. He is initially taken aback upon hearing from an external source a noise he so strongly associates with his parents agony, but quickly he realises his mistake and that he's gone and made a bit of a bit of a prat of himself as Fred delicately puts it, not to mention almost revealed his great, big, scary secret and so proceeds to plays it cool by biting into a custard cream with feigned unconcern, all his previous anxiety apparently dissolved. And when the custard cream actually turns out to be a * canary* cream he laughs good?humouredly along with the rest because he's actually * relieved* to have attention centred somewhere other than that awful egg. After all posing as a bird for a few moments for your friends amusement is * nothing* compared to spilling your guts out in front of the whole house. OK, so you can take or leave that last part. But do you see my point? JKR as a rule hardly ever has her characters overacting. Quite to the contrary: from Harry almost all the time to Remus and Sirius's brief and to?the ?point reconciliation, her heroes rarely indulge in emotional outbursts even when fully entitled to them. And, what's more, Neville in particular sure has done a great job up till now of hiding his skeleton?in?the?family?closet. I'm thinking this boy ought to be a past master at restraining his emotions. It must take something really Big (and Bangy!) to make him let go. At least something * much* bigger than "Ooo, hang on. . . deja vue flash. . ." Eloise continued: >Another point I'd like to make is that even if Neville has no *memory* of the >events (and it would seem unlikely anyway, given his very young age at the >time, memory charm or no), or no conscious trauma caused by them, he still >*knows* what happened. He *knows* his parents were tortured; he has to see >the results every holiday. This is traumatic in itself. He doesn't have to >*remember* witnessing the Cruciatus performed on his parents to make >connections. > Yeah, but that's the * boring* explanation! It's the obvious thought that pops into you're head when you find out about the Longbottoms family history in the Pensieve scene. Surely there must be more to it than that?! Otherwise what are we all doing here? ;--) I wrote: > >> Sooooo, every loud noise makes his mind leap automatically to the >> Cruciatus. He can't help it. And especially after that nice little >> reminder of his parents torment courtesy of Monsieur Crouch which >> made all those old memories resurface with a vengeance. > And Cindy wondered: >Ah, but *why*? *Why* does Neville liken the Egg's wail to torture? And she immediately went on to answer her own question by offering two separate explanations: Take One: >The first option is that Neville reacts the way he does because of >those dreaded visits to his parents at St. Mungos. What do his >parents likely *do* during those visits? Well, that depends on >whether you want a Bang or not. > >If you want a Bang (as I surely do), then they *wail*, that's what >they do! They are insane, Dumbledore tells us. They do not >recognize Neville. Fair enough. > >But what is the most Bangy scenario we can think of to explain what >the Longbottoms might actually *do* during those visits? Having >them lie quietly in their beds, staring at the ceiling, being rolled >over every hour on the hour, is a total Dud. > >No, they need to *wail*, just like the Egg. Loudly. They sit up, >clutching their knees, rocking back and forth, wailing loudly pretty >much non-stop. Heck, if you really want a Huge Bang, we can decide >that the closer Neville comes, the more loudly they wail. Yeah, this might work. I actually quite like it. And Neville associates the wailing sound with the casting of Cruciatus because in Neville's mind the wailing is exactly the * result* of Crucio. But then you've got to content with the fact that what Neville says upon hearing the egg is "It was somebody being tortured!" instead of "It was somebody who * has* been tortured!". But then again we've already established that Neville's not quite thinking straight there. He's just getting a bit confused poor lad, that's all. If he'd stopped to think about it a bit longer he'd `ave got the tense right, all right. Yeah, that's all. Take Two: >It could simply be that the character of the Egg's wail changes for >each person hearing it. The noise is is what it is, but each person >hears something deeply and subjectively unpleasant. For Harry, it >is the ghost orchestra. For Seamus, it is the banshee. For George, >it is annoying Percy. For Filch, it is a "racket" -- the kind of >irritating noise mischievous students make. For me, it would be the >voice of Gilderoy Lockhart. And for Neville . . . well, for >Neville, it is those horrid visits to his wailing parents. > >Heck, if we decide the Egg's wail is subjective, then we can really >destroy the Egg argument. Neville really *might* be hearing his >parents tortured cries again, even though it doesn't sound like that >to anyone else. And what freaks him out is not the sound -- he has >heard that a million times. It is the fact that the sound isn't >inside his own head this time -- and that *is* something new, >different and frightening. Good reason to drop a plate of sausages, >I'd say. > >And what, BTW, is the canon for the idea that the Egg's wail might >affect each listener differently? Gee, is there anything we've seen >so far that objects each person differently? Ah, but of course! >Dementors and boggarts! And don't forget the Mirror of Erised. Nor?yup, that's right--- nor the Egg itself. Here. Now lets forget about the * sound* of the Egg ok? How about we concentrate on it's * meaning* instead? Because all that wailing, err, screechy, err, rackety, err, singing (see where my problems identifying exactly what the noise sounds like come from? I agree nobody's mentioned screaming or yelling or whatever till now, but the other sounds are hardly compatible, are they? really does mean something if you listen to it the right way: "We've taken what you'll sorely miss" Again another highly individualised message. If Boggarts are a person's greatest fear, Dementors their worst memory and their reflection in the Mirror their most burning desire, then the interpretation of the eggs rhyme would give us their most beloved object and subsequently the egg's threat would be that person's worst idea of the future, what ?on an individual level, world domination by arch?enemies wouldn't count?would simply make life really * miserable* for the listener. So the noise the egg makes might be a conversion into sound of the way that individual would feel were the dreaded scenario that's put into words if you open the egg underwater to become a reality. And of course this sound would differ from individual to individual because not everybody agrees on what exactly is the most insufferable noise ever heard. Having said all that however I must admit I fail to see how the loss of Ron would be connected in Harry's mind with the musical saws. Hmmm. Oh, yes, but it's obvious of course! If Ron drowns ghosts will play the musical saws at * his* deathday party! Crystal clear really. Charis Julia, who thinks she would like to confront a Boggart, a Dementor and the Mirror just once `cos she really has no idea what her greatest fear, memory or desire are. Ah, well. From Edblanning at aol.com Thu May 30 10:23:54 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 06:23:54 EDT Subject: Snape/Draco (was: Re: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame) Message-ID: <36.282d38d9.2a2757ba@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39180 Irene: > > Assuming that Draco is not totally stupid, may be he is just > genuinely interested in potions? After all, Snape appears to be an > adequate teacher, who is passionate about his subject. The only > reason Gryffindors do not enjoy Potions does not apply to Draco. So > it's not too far-fetched for Draco to be Snape's favourite student > just because he is good at his subject. In fact, Snape's interest in Draco is flagged in the very first Potions lesson, before the latter had opportunity to show any aptitude or interest, which is one of the reasons that some of us think that his favouritism has more to do with a need/desire to keep in with Lucius than with any feelings he has about Draco himself. 'He swept around......criticising almost everyone except Malfoy, whom he seemed to like.' (PS, 103, UK paperback) Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Thu May 30 06:20:20 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (LD) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 07:20:20 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] TBAY: Stunning!Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <000001c207a2$1345e7c0$2eec6bd5@quack> No: HPFGUIDX 39181 The sound of John Williams' beautiful score is coming from one of those shiny Dolby 5.1 DVD Home Cinema systems that everyone wishes they could afford, and subsequently only appear in dreams or made-up scenarios like this. LD is sitting in front of it, remote control in hand, watching random scenes of the Philosopher's Stone DVD frame-by-frame. "Aha!" he exclaims, taking a sip of his drink, "So that's the Grey Lady..." Just then (as if by magic) an owl shoots through the open window and slams into the wall opposite, before dropping to the floor in front of LD's feet with a thud. Chuckling to himself, LD carefully picks up the stunned bird and loosens the parchment from its foot. After casually tossing the bird back out of the window, (and ignoring its screeches at it falls to the ground), LD takes a seat and reads the letter from Caroline. ***[Message .....]*** >"check out message 38542; drop by and visit >Stoned! Harry sometime" ********************* Scratching his head, LD picks up a dusty old tome from the floor. Blowing on its surface the words 'Yahoo Groups Archive' are revealed in gold lettering. LD opens the book, and turns to message number 38542... ***[Message 38542]*** * * So. The alchemists believed that Mercury + Sulphur = Philosopher's * stone. * JKR's planted *lots* of symbols around Harry that relate to these two * elements. * Things associated, alchemically, with sulphur: stag, phoenix, color * red, lion * With mercury: color green, serpent, unicorn * In art, the alchemists showed the creation of the philosopher's stone * as a stag & unicorn coming together in a forest. * So, I figure James + Lily = living Philosopher's stone ********************* "OH MY GOD! I LOVE IT!" LD shrieks at the top of his voice, dancing excitedly into the air, "MUCH better than my half-assed Professor!Draco 'theory' I can't stop thinking of! Sign me up!" LD flings open a drawer and searches for his water wings, before remembering that he should probably read through the rest of the message first. Picking up the book again, he scans to the bottom, before reading... ***[Message 38542]*** * * Dumbledore only says "Your mother died to save you." And this is in * answer to the question "Why couldn't Quirrell touch me?", (SS p. 299) * not `how did I survive?' * ********************* LD slaps his head loudly, and realises how lame he's been all this time. Overlooking that one fact has closed his mind to countless other theories... how does the whole speech go again? ***[SS - p299]*** * * "Your mother died to save you. If there is one thing Voldemort cannot understand, it is love. He didn't realize * that love as powerful as your mother's for you leaves its own mark. Not a scare, no visible sign... To have been * loved so deeply, even though the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever. It is in your * very skin. Quirrell, full of hatred, greed and ambition, sharing his soul with Voldemort, could not touch you for * this reason. It was agony to touch a person marked by something so good." * ***************** "Argh, how could I have been so stupid?" he asks whilst banging his head against a wall, "It was never there at all. All this time, Dumbledore was just explaining about Quirrell! And to think I thought it was all about Voldemort!". LD slams the archive shut, grabs his water wings from the drawer, and storms out of the room in search of Theory Bay. As he wanders the streets towards the harbour, he remembers that Lily's wand has been described as a nice wand for charm work. Could that aptitude for charms have been helpful in the complex rituals that could have gone into making Stoned!Potter? After all, James' wand was suposedly great for transfiguration, and he managed to become an animagus. And if Harry is a living Philosophers Stone, and therefore immortal, why is Dumbledore so worried that he almost died at the end of Book 1? Or is this immortality a dormant factor, lying deep within him that needs to be unlocked through a series of complex (and hopefully gruesome) rituals? With those thoughts and questions all racing around his head like a group of small rodents on a treadmill, LD leaps into the water and paddles his way towards the mass of ships and boats, supported by his purple armbands. Now... how to find out which one has Stoned!Harry on it? -LD From lilac_bearry at yahoo.com Thu May 30 07:56:36 2002 From: lilac_bearry at yahoo.com (Krista Berry) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 00:56:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: GOF&9/11/01and Red Hair/Green Eyes Message-ID: <20020530075636.39702.qmail@web21506.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39182 Hello I'm Lilac, new to the list and so glad to have found you all! I've been a big HP fan since 2000, reading all 4 books for the first time in my last month of pregnancy, finishing book 4 a few hours before birth of child #2. So, enough about me... Here are a couple of thoughts I've been having after re-reading the series for the nth time, and after finding your "Fantastic Posts" via the brilliant HPLexicon. Thought One- (warning, muggle politics involved, mostly parallels...see comment at the end of post) During the GOF graveyard scene, Harry faces some very horrific events. As a result, JKR tells us that book 4 is an end of an era; Harry's innocence is now over. (http://home.scottsburg.com/trinkle/rowlinginterview.htm is the link, thanks to aberforthsgoat.net). How ironic that the situation Harry is in now parallels the post-September 11th world we now live in. Some other similarities-> Harry's scar burns to serve as a warning/caution. Intelligence Arena (IA)had warnings pre 9/11. Harry waited for a long time to tell Dumbledore about scar/dreams. IA/Government waited for a long time (but too late) to warn public. All the pieces weren't fitting together for Dumbledore (thus the need for the pensieve) before the graveyard. All the pieces weren't connected enough to fit together for IA before 9/11. 20/20 hindsight, right? Innocent Cedric was killed. Thousands of innocent people were killed. Harry wounded, but still stands up and fights. Country wounded, but still stands up and fights. Wormtail sacrificed part of himself for the Voldemort's potion, with the promise of reward. The "Wormtails" on the airplanes became suicide hijackers, sacrificing themselves with the promise of reward. Harry must have "CONSTANT VIGILANCE" from now on. We are told by our own "Moody's" to be constantly vigilant everyday from now on. (Hope this isn't too depressing. And you thought you joined this group to get away from all the junk in the real world...sorry about that) No, I don't think JKR had a "Trelawney Trance" when she wrote GOF and predicted the future. But I do think that her book is very timely with the theme of loss of innocence. It was bound to happen, in Harry's world as well as our own. And now for something completely different...thought number two. You know how the color red is mostly associated with Harry/Gryffindor and green with Voldemort/Slytherin? So, what is the significance, if any, that Lily has Red Hair and Green Eyes? Does it have something to do with how Harry has both Slytherin and Gryffindor qualities (according to the sorting hat in SS/PS), but chooses Gryffindor because "it is our choices... that show what we truly are, far more than our abilities" (Dumbledore, COS pg. 333). Does Lily Evans Potter have some Slytherin in her as well? Things that make you go hmmmm. -- Lilac :) (who will be going to the humongous big file after finishing this to see if she did everything right) [Moderator Note: Discussion of parallels between GoF and the events of 9/11 is fine; however, please remember to keep discussion centered on the JK Rowling books and to avoid inflamatory comments. Thanks! Judy Serenity, List Elf] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu May 30 11:45:09 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:45:09 -0000 Subject: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39183 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "naamagatus" wrote: > > Assuming that Draco is not totally stupid, may be he is just > > genuinely interested in potions? After all, Snape appears to be an > > adequate teacher, who is passionate about his subject. The only > > reason Gryffindors do not enjoy Potions does not apply to Draco. So > > it's not too far-fetched for Draco to be Snape's favourite student > > just because he is good at his subject. > > > > Irene > > Uh, well, that won't work, 'cause Hermione is a better studnet than > Draco (in potions, as well as in everything else) and she's hardly a > favorite, is she? Hermione is a Gryffindor and therefore, by definition, will never be a favorite of Snape's. If Draco is the best Potions student among the Slytherins, that would be enough to make Snape favor him. And if doing so puts Snape in a more favorable position with Lucius -- so much the better, right? Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Thu May 30 11:56:15 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 11:56:15 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Remus isn't THAT nice NOW Sirius isn't very brave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39184 Pip is busily scrubbing the deck of the Big Bang. Captain Cindy is swaggering past in one of her more forgiving moods, only pointing out the occasional (un) missed spot. As she works, she quietly discusses Sirius Black and the Marauders with Felicia. " I have a little theory that all the Marauders had some basic character flaw, and that one of the effects Harry is having is to make them face that and overcome it.", she says. This seems to be a slightly controversial idea, unpopular with both Remus fans and Sirius fans. 'Wow,' thinks Pip 'it's a good thing that only SYCOPHANTS sympathise with Peter, or I could be in real trouble.' Pip heads for the explosive part. "Sirius - well, pre-Harry Sirius isn't exactly *brave*, is he? But he's learning." Suddenly Pip looks up as a figure looms threateningly over her. "He what?" Dicentra interrupts. She stands and puts her hands on her hips. Pip shrinks back nervously. "What do you mean he isn't *brave*?" Pip, who now has visions of getting a toothbrush Waddiwasi'd up her very own left nostril, responds with more courage than sense: "If Sirius was genuinely brave instead of only sportsjock brave he'd have faced Teenage!Snape himself and not shoved being Secret Keeper onto snivelling little Peter." "Oh, that will *not* go unanswered," Dicentra begins to mutter, teeth clenched. Her eyes are glittering, and Pip is too startled to protest as she is hauled unceremoniously away from the partly finished deck. Dicentra grabs a lift to shore from Stoned!Harry, and drags a protesting Pip towards the Shrieking Shack diorama in the Museum. "Listen to this," she says, as she punches a white button with her thumb. The sound comes on. Sirius is talking to Sniveling!Peter. "Lily and James only made you Secret-Keeper because I suggested it," Black hissed, so venemously that Pettigrew took a step backward. "I thought it was the perfect plan...a bluff.... Voldemort would be sure to come after me, would never dream they'd use a weak, talentless thing like you...." Dicentra pushes the button again and the action freezes. "Did you hear that? Sirius suggested they make Peter the Secret-Keeper,knowing that Voldemort would go after Sirius himself. Sirius was planning to take whatever torture Voldemort wanted to dish out, but since he's not the Secret-Keeper, Voldemort can't get any information out of him. Turning yourself into a decoy to lure Voldemort from your friends isn't my idea of cowardice!" She takes a step towards Pip, foam flecking her lips. Pip raises her hands and tries to calm her. "Dicentra, Dicentra, haven't I taught you *anything*? What am I always telling you? Never trust anything anybody says *unless you can see the supporting evidence*! And what supporting evidence do we actually *have* about Sirius's motives for using Peter? None! Zilch! Nothing! "Hah!" says Dicentra, spitting in sheer anger. "You, talk about evidence! You! When we don't know that Sirius played sports at all!" Her voice rises to a scream, "So I don't know where 'sports-jock' brave comes from." Pip takes a couple of steps backward to avoid the spit flying from Dicentra's mouth. "Okay, okay, I admit that there is no can(n)on that says Sirius played sports. I concede that point. I was using 'sports-jock' as an analogy, ok? Because I think Sirius *did* play Quidditch, and *liked* being seen as brave. But I *can't* prove it. And all you really risk in school Quidditch (unless you're Harry) is broken bones that Madame Pomfrey can fix overnight." Dicentra breathes heavily, and starts to speak through clenched teeth. "If Sirius has a flaw, it's that he's overconfident about his own cleverness. He's sure his plan will work -- so sure he has no problem convincing James and Lily. But he was wrong. And he's equally sure he can capture Peter single-handedly and kill the Rat, but Peter outsmarted him and framed him instead. And THEN he tries to catch Peter again, alone, and Peter gets away again." "Well, OK," says Pip. "Calm down, it's not such a big deal. Sirius might be overconfident - the two ideas aren't incompatible. He could genuinely think he has a good plan," (she pauses, then rushes on) " which is also going to shove the main responsibility for keeping the Secret onto Peter." At this point Pip becomes aware that a very large, hairy, grey streaked dog is frolicking around in the background. Dicentra is resolutely ignoring it. The dog, noticing Pip's interest, begins to bounce around on its front paws and give short, sharp barks, in the way that dogs do when they want you to play with them. At least, Pip *thinks* it's a dog. It must be, it's full daylight. At this point, Pip becomes rather uncomfortably aware that the full moon is sometimes visible in the daytime. And there's a suspiciously silvery orb just above her... Pip gulps, and then goes on: "On to the next point. What about facing teen-aged Snape himself? Why didn't he just settle things like a man instead of sending him down..." But Dicentra lays an index finger on Pip's mouth, glaring at Prank as he wags his tail. "Don't. Mention. That. Incident. Ever. Again." she snarls. "This list has discussed you-know-what far too many times. Don't get us started again." Prank whines softly, and looks appealingly at Pip. And Prank can look very appealing when he wants to. Pip hisses at Prank out of the corner of her mouth. "Go away, Prank! I am not going to play with you! Dicentra's right, EVERYONE plays with you! You could spend a month just reading about the games people have played with you!" Prank whines again, and drops a (rather wet) stick from his mouth. He scratches it with his paw. 'Go on', he's obviously saying. 'Just one little throw.' Pip picks up the stick, as Dicentra glares venomously at her. "Don't get us started again." she says, as she stalks out of the museum. Pip looks at the stick. It has lettering on it. 'People's behaviour as children foreshadows their behaviour as adults.' it says. She turns it over. On the other side it says 'See Stalky and Co., by Rudyard Kipling' Pip follows Dicentra outside, Prank bouncing happily alongside her. Dicentra is still glaring, obviously not happy that Pip is going to throw the stick for Prank. Prank wags his tail at Dicentra, who sniffs. "Ok," says Pip, " I'm going to try and keep this down to one throw. Ignoring all questions about whether Prank is a silly teenage joke that could have had disastrous consequences, or a genuine murder attempt, or whether Sirius plays it because he's in love with Lily and sees Severus as a rival, or WHATEVER..." (at this point Prank whuffs in a disappointed manner. 'We could have had such larks, Pip', he seems to be thinking.) "...you will accept, won't you, Dicentra, that in GoF Sirius describes Snape as knowing a lot about curses?" Dicentra nods slowly, but Pip can see the words 'supporting evidence' forming on her lips. She hurries on. "This is supported by the Duelling scene in CoS, and by Sirius stopping (very sensibly) completely dead in PoA when Snape threatens him with a wand. Snape knows how to fight. Sirius knows that Snape can fight." Dicentra taps her foot impatiently. "Will you hurry up and get this dratted dog OUT OF THE WAY!" she snarls. Pip looks hurriedly at the stick in her hand. "So, stripped down to its basics, you could say that in the Prank, Sirius finds himself faced with a possibly dangerous opponent and chooses not to face him bravely and directly. Instead he chooses to let a friend deal with Snape. He appears not to consider (or possibly is too young to realise) the consequences that may follow from this." Pip heaves a huge sigh of relief, and flings the stick as far out as possible into the bay. Prank gives one great bark, leaps for the stick in mid-air, misses, then races after it, whuffing happily. Pip takes a deep breath, and looks at Dicentra. "And," she continues, "this is very similar to the Secret Keeper affair. Sirius is again faced with a dangerous opponent (Voldemort). He has an opportunity to face him bravely and directly by keeping James and Lily's Secret even if captured and tortured. Instead, he chooses to let a friend keep the Secret. He appears not to consider (or possibly not to realise) the possible consequences of this; one being that (even if Peter had been faithful) once Voldemort realised who the Secret Keeper was, Peter is probably the *most* likely to crack under Crucio. Pip returns to her main point. "And I repeat; Sirius isn't exactly *brave*, is he? Dicentra stares fixedly at Pip, a vein in her forehead starting to throb dangerously. "You are missing" she hisses "the main point. All the evidence suggests that Sirius Black was a Gryffindor! And Gryffindors are brave! That's WHY they are in Gryffindor!" Pip looks quietly at Dicentra. "Neville's a Gryffindor." she says. She pauses. "This partially depends on Elkins' suggestion that the WW is essentially a warrior culture. (Post #36779 and others)" Both she and Dicentra look towards the Big Bang. If Captain Cindy ever finds out Pip is playing an Elkins, Pip will find herself cleaning the heads with the toothbrush, never mind the deck. Pip continues. "As Dumbledore points out at the end of PS/SS, there are many kinds of courage. But the majority of the WW seem to see 'true' courage as only the 'warrior' type of courage. The type of courage that will rush in against a powerful enemy, that will face even death bravely. James has it; he's prepared to save someone he dislikes from a transformed werewolf, and in PS/SS Voldemort says that James died fighting. " "And that's what I mean when I say Sirius isn't very *brave*. He does not have that kind of direct, 'fighting' courage. But he lets people think that he does. Judge by his behaviour, not his words. He never, throughout the whole of PoA, rushes in bravely or publicly proclaims his innocence. Instead he sneaks in to Gryffindor Tower when people are asleep, and hides in the guise of a dog. It's not until Harry's life is threatened that he shows himself willing to fight - and then it's in his transformed state. IMO, it is Sirius's lack of fighting courage, together with James's belief in his friend, that helped to kill James and Lily." Pip looks down at the ground, then up at Dicentra. "But yes, Sirius does belong in Gryffindor. Just as Neville does. Because they both have one of the other types of courage. Sirius has the courage of endurance. He survives Azkaban when it would have been easier to give up and die; and in GoF he decides that if being on hand for his godson means he'll have to live on rats, he'll eat the wretched rats. And he is learning; his failure of nerve has cost him (and Harry) James and Lily - but he's not going to let Harry down. He waits for Harry in human form inside Hogwarts, despite the risk (end of GoF)." Dicentra stalks off, still fuming. Pip watches her swim off strongly towards the Big Bang. Pip, on the other hand, can only swim 100 yards at most. She waves at Stoned!Harry, who is currently walking on the water of the bay, throwing the stick for Prank. "Harry! Any chance of a lift?" Pip From medeia_no at yahoo.no Thu May 30 12:51:30 2002 From: medeia_no at yahoo.no (medeia_no) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 12:51:30 -0000 Subject: The flying motorbike Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39185 We learn that Hagrid got the flying motorbike from Sirius Black. In book#3, PoA, Hagrid states that " ...an' Sirius Black turns up on that flyin' motorbike he used ter ride." This must mean Sirius Black had been riding it for quite some time. However, Arthur Weasly got in trouble for owning a flying car. Why didn't Sirius get in trouble for owning a flying motorbike? Does this mean Sirius Black had some sort of special permission? "medeia_no" From shindemo_ii at yahoo.com Thu May 30 14:20:12 2002 From: shindemo_ii at yahoo.com (Kate Tanski) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 07:20:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Newbie Intro and Question In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020530142012.76455.qmail@web14911.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39186 *mutters something about the inability to write an OT post late at night* Let's try this again . . . I'm a newbie. *bows* This list was reccomended to me by Heidi. I'm here mostly in an attempt to fascilitate my reasearch for my undergraduate thesis, and as such, I have a quick question. Critic Anthony Holden has labeled the HP series as belonging to the 'weary tradition' of school novels a la Tom Brown's Schooldays. There are some startling parallels. The central place of Quidditch, for example, echoes the central place of Rugby in TBS. Visually the Quidditch uniforms (and Annie Liebowitz' pics from Vanity Fair) are striking similar to the 'old' Rugby styled photos--all leather padding and striped sweaters. I think you can get the picture. Thoughts? =Kate= __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From SaalsG at cni-usa.com Thu May 30 14:24:13 2002 From: SaalsG at cni-usa.com (Grace) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:24:13 -0500 Subject: DFraco is Ever So Lame Message-ID: <018201c207e5$ace21c80$1f4053d1@SaalsD> No: HPFGUIDX 39187 Me: > > > In CoS, (book not in front of me) it says Draco is Snape's > favorite > > student. And why would that be? References are made to Snape's > > ability to be very astute when he's reading Harry or putting a > > sequence of events together that leads to Harry being involved > > somehow. If he's that sharp, then what does he see in Draco? I > > doubt that Snape sees Draco as the most fantastic kid in the > school - > > and he can't be so blindly loyal to his House that only Draco > appeals > > to him. So what does Draco have the catches Snape attention? > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "irene_mikhlin" wrote: > > Assuming that Draco is not totally stupid, may be he is just > > genuinely interested in potions? After all, Snape appears to be an > > adequate teacher, who is passionate about his subject. The only > > reason Gryffindors do not enjoy Potions does not apply to Draco. So > > it's not too far-fetched for Draco to be Snape's favourite student > > just because he is good at his subject. > > naamagatus" wrote: > > Uh, well, that won't work, 'cause Hermione is a better studnet than > Draco (in potions, as well as in everything else) and she's hardly a > favorite, is she? > > Naama Me: My thoughts exactly. Snape does appear to be a good teacher - although he is a little bit rough on the students and their pets. Perhaps its his way of teaching DADA in his Potions class. I'm sure the Dark Arts show up in more than just hexes and spells. It would rear its head in all matter magical, and Snape, realizing this, could put the cruel "edge" to his students to teach them to be ever mindful. I don't think using Draco to appeal to Voldemort though Lucius Malfoy is that plausible. Voldemort had the opportunity to interrogate Bertha, and as he said, he had learned quite a bit from her. He also had the opportunity to interrogate Quirrel who was a much closer and direct contact to Snape. Quirrel could easily have sat there in the teachers' lounge, taking in the conversations that were about Snape and passed his suspicious on the Voldemort. Voldemort is resourceful and cunning; certainly not stupid. I think Voldemort knows about Snape being a spy and in the next book it will come out. Perhaps its Snape who dies in the next book. I'm left with the impression that Snape has the job of going back to Voldemort as the spy again and is in peril because of the knowledge collected from Bertha and Quirrel. At the beginning of GoF, first chapter,Voldemort says in Harry's dream: "One more murder ... my faithful servant at Hogwarts ... " That could be read as: "One more murder ... Snape, my faithful servant at Hogwarts...." And in chapter 23, when he talks to the Death Eaters, At the mention of Dumbledore's name, the members of the circle stirred, and some muttered and shook their heads. Voldemort ignored them. "It is a disappointment to me ... I confess myself disappointed ..." Could he be speaking of Snape specifically? Grace [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From naama_gat at hotmail.com Thu May 30 14:42:48 2002 From: naama_gat at hotmail.com (naamagatus) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:42:48 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Remus isn't THAT nice NOW Sirius isn't very brave In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39188 >Pip takes a deep breath, and looks at Dicentra. "And," she continues, "this is very similar to the Secret Keeper affair. Sirius is again faced with a dangerous opponent (Voldemort). He has an opportunity to face him bravely and directly by keeping James and Lily's Secret even if captured and tortured. Instead, he chooses to let a friend keep the Secret. He appears not to consider (or possibly not to realise) the possible consequences of this; one being that (even if Peter had been faithful) once Voldemort realised who the Secret Keeper was, Peter is probably the *most* likely to crack under >Crucio. Me: Whether Sirius was actually the secret keeper or not had nothing to do with the probability of his having to face Voldemort. It depended only on who Voldemort was likely to think was the Potters' secret keeper. Was there any reason to believe that Voldemort would not think that Sirius is the secret keeper? Everybody else, even Dumbledore, were sure that it was to be Sirius. The only way you could reasonably argue that Sirius switched parts with Peter out of cowardice, is if Sirius took care to inform Voldemort of this switch. It makes no sense otherwise. However, we know he did no such thing (unless you are ready to say that both Peter and Sirius were traitors). Do you think that if Voldemort had captured Sirius (under the belief that he is the secret keeper), he would have Crucio'd him once, then taken 'no' for an answer? He tortured Bertha Jorkins until he broke through a powerful memory charm. He would have attempted to do the same with Sirius - break him. By not being the secret keeper, Sirius had, in effect, put himself at the risk of torture that he cannot end, even if he had reached a point where he was willing to do so. I'd say that's courage of a very high order. Naama Naama From foxmoth at qnet.com Thu May 30 15:24:21 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:24:21 -0000 Subject: TBAY: Remus isn't THAT nice - well.....(and Marauders) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39189 Pip said: > "Oh, I don't think Remus is BAD. I have a little theory that all the > Marauders had some basic character flaw, and that one of the effects > Harry is having is to make them face that and overcome it." Pippin overhears this conversation also. My, she thinks, this is very like her venerable WOZ theory. [Snape, Lupin and Sirius have character flaws similar to Dorothy's companions in The Wizard of Oz. Snape has no heart, Lupin lacks courage, Sirius is thoughtless.] But Pip has a different take on which flaws go with which characters. Dicentra maintains that Sirius is merely overconfident, while Pip insists that he is cowardly. But it is Lupin who's the coward, in fact he actually says so. And denial is definitely part of of that, IMO, though mostly these days he's in denial of his anger about being a werewolf and having to be dependent on Dumbledore and worst of all Snape. I don't think Remus is BAD, I don't think Sirius is BAD, I don't even think Snape is BAD. But they have flaws, all of them, yes even dear sweet Lupin. I like the idea that Lupin was in denial about how dangerous he is as a werewolf, especially during the Marauders era. His words do have a tinge of the alcoholic, "Yes, I admit my drinking caused a problem but it won't happen *again.* " That would fit in well with my idea that he was in on the prank after all. It also makes sense that Sirius meant to be present. After all, what's the good of setting up a practical joke if you aren't there for the kill? Hypothetical sequence of events: [ Dicentra screams in horror and stops reading...Pippin uneasily looks in the direction of BigPaddle!Cindy and suggests adjourning the discussion to the ELVIRA lifeboat, where all shipwrecked theories find refuge. There may be a few Dementors around, courtesy of Cindy, but that's okay. Reliving old memories is what they're all about.] It's true that Lupin's account of events in the Shack makes it sound as if it was all Sirius's idea, but, well, it would be in character for Lupin to conceal that he was part of it. When has he ever admitted anything until he was forced to? Hypothetical events marked with a *. Unasterisked events are canon. 5th year: The Marauders master the animagi stunt. 6th year: The Marauders have grown bolder and are leaving the shack. Snape sees Lupin crossing the grounds toward the willow with Madame Pomfrey. The Marauders become aware of this. It seems all too certain that Snape's spying will eventually uncover their animagus status and they will all be thrown out of school. *They are divided on how to handle it. *James and Pettigrew think the game is up. Sirius comes up with a plan. He will, as a 'prank', let Snape know how to get into the willow. * When Snape enters he will see Remus and be so terrified he won't get near the willow again. Snape will find out for sure about Lupin, but it seems that's going to happen anyway. If Snape tries to talk, Dumbledore will silence him. *Sirius confides only in Lupin. He apparently doesn't tell James, who is pre-occupied with Quidditch and in line to be head boy if he doesn't get into too much more trouble. Peter is, of course, useless. *Lupin agrees because: His moonlight adventures with his friends are the only thing that makes his life bearable. *There won't be any real danger to Snape, he thinks, because Sirius will be there in dog form and can stop him from doing any damage. *If Snape sees transfigured Sirius it won't matter, he'll just think it was the Grim. *Perhaps Sirius plans to helps this along with a bit of phosphorescent potion splashed on his fangs ala The Hound of the Baskervilles. * He allows Snape to see him as The Grim, thus convincing Snape that his death is imminent and setting the stage for Snape to believe the prank was pre-meditated murder. But something goes wrong. * Perhaps Sirius gets detention. James finds out from someone that Sirius told Snape how to get into the willow. * The moon is brightening the horizon as James daringly...(well if I went on from here it would be fan fiction, so I'll stop.) Pippin waving at Pip, fellow Christie fan, and wondering what Miss Marple would make of all this. From Joanne0012 at aol.com Thu May 30 15:26:06 2002 From: Joanne0012 at aol.com (joanne0012) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:26:06 -0000 Subject: Newbie Intro and Question In-Reply-To: <20020530142012.76455.qmail@web14911.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39190 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kate Tanski wrote: > Critic Anthony Holden has labeled the HP series as belonging to the > 'weary tradition' of school novels a la Tom Brown's Schooldays. There > are some startling parallels. You need to read Pico Iyer's wonderful article, "Playing Fields of Hogwarts," which appeared in the New Yorker in late 1999. He argues that Hogwarts is in many ways an accurate reproduction of the classical English boarding schools; as such, it would not be derivative of Tom Brown's Schooldays, but rather both would be impressions of the genuine places. Here's a link to the article. http://partners.nytimes.com/books/99/10/10/bookend/bookend.html From coriolan at worldnet.att.net Thu May 30 15:31:32 2002 From: coriolan at worldnet.att.net (coriolan_cmc2001) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 15:31:32 -0000 Subject: Unforgivable (filk) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39191 Unforgivable (to the tune of Unforgettable) Hear the original at: http://www.buffnet.net/~ambrosia/page3.htm Dedicated to the "unforgettable" Mariner Note: Put the accent on the third syllable for unpaLATable and unparDONable. THE SCENE: A Karaoke Club on Diagon Alley. HARRY & LORD VOLDEMORT sing a duet at the piano (a strong streak of "Lounge Lizard" runs through every Parselmouth) VOLDEMORT: Unforgivable, my curses are HARRY: Unpreventable, I gained my scar Like a beam of wrath that targets me VOLDMORT: How my hex on you deflects on me BOTH: Never before has someone been more Unenjoyable in every way HARRY: It's unending war since the first day VOLDEMORT: That's why, boy, it's unpalatable That someone so incompatible BOTH: Thinks that I'm/you're not indestructible too HARRY: Unpardonable is each AK VOLDEMORT: That's unenforceable when I hold sway HARRY: So you'll try to stay unrestrictable BOTH: Our futures seem unpredictable One of us will be unlivable soon .. - CMC HARRY POTTER FILKS http://home.att.net/~coriolan/hpfilks.htm (updated today with 27 new filks, four new illustrations) From ladjables at yahoo.com Thu May 30 16:19:23 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:19:23 -0000 Subject: Slave dialect comparison/ Re: Official Philip Nel Question #9: House Elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39192 Hi Gwen Fascinating fanfic/theory! Just one thing: --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "gwendolyngrace" wrote: > On a slightly different note, some folks pointed out the similarity > between house-elf speech and the slave dialect used in 19th century > period pieces. I find that really interesting, because I never even > considered that was a possible parallel. > (snipped examples from Mitchell and Thane) > I can see that the house-elves have a dialect of their own, but I > guess I'm missing something when it comes to a side-by-side > comparison of Black American speech as represented in novels about > the 19th Century, specifically the Civil War period. I never > thought of it as a pidgin, per se, but simply as an attempt to make > the house-elves seem childlike, to go along with their diminutive > appearance. Zora Neale Hurston wrote "Their Eyes Were Watching God" in 1937, and her characters were former slaves and descendants of slaves living in Florida. Here are some examples: "We'se [we is] goin' back tuh Miami where folks is civilized."(Their Eyes, p. 153, 1st Perennial Classics Edition) "Oh, if you'se [you is] treatin' me tuh it, Ah[I] b'lieve Ah'll take de passenger train." (p. 101) "You's noble! You'se du most gentlemanfied man Ah ever did see. You'se uh king!" (p. 73) "Lawd, some folks is got everything and they's so gripin' and mean!...They's willin' tuh see uh po' woman and her helpless chillun starve tuh death." (p. 74) "How much time is you willin' tuh make fuh Daisy?" (p. 68) "Youse just as crazy as you ever was." (p. 5) "You looks like youse you' own daughter." (p. 4) Now Dobby and Winky in GoF: "You is not insulting my master, miss! You is not insulting Mr. Crouch! Mr. Crouch is a good wizard, miss!" "He said we is free to call him a- a barmy old codger if we likes, sir!" (GoF, p. 380, US Edition) "They isn't my masters anymore, Winky!" "Oh, you is a bad elf, Dobby!" "...oh what is they saying if they knew Winky was freed?" "You is seeing my master? You is seeing him here at Hogwarts?" (p. 381) "You is killed him! You is killed him! You is killed master's son!" (p. 683) "You isn't ought to tell them, we is getting in trouble...." (p. 685) "Master Barty, Master Barty, what is you saying?" (p. 690) Read aloud, they are quite similar. Also, how significant is it that Mitchell was white and Neale Hurston black? Neale Hurston probably spoke the dialect she used in her novel. Let me know what you think. Ama, who knows she would make a total mess out of transcribing her grandmother's patois. From cindysphynx at comcast.net Thu May 30 16:44:06 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:44:06 -0000 Subject: Characters' Overreacting and Overacting (WAS TBAY: MACHINGARMCHAIR ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39193 Charis Julia wrote: > JKR as a rule hardly ever has her characters overacting. Quite to >the contrary: from Harry almost all the time to Remus and Sirius's >brief and to?the ?point reconciliation, her heroes rarely indulge >in emotional outbursts even when fully entitled to them. Well. Hmmm. This is very interesting. Do JKR's characters ever overreact, and if so, is there any discernable pattern to which characters tend to go over the top? I'd *really* like to see Charis Julia's observation work, because it it so very interesting. After all, Harry rarely has an emotional outburst. His yelling in the Shrieking Shack "He killed my mum and dad" is about the extent of it. This outburst is nothing in light of the many opportunities for Harry to come unhinged but he doesn't. Ron and Hermione (especially Ron) tend to keep their cool and not fall apart. Dumbledore, McGonagall both don't overreact to most things, although McGonagall went to pieces there at the departure of Crouch Jr.'s soul. But there are some obstacles. There's the Sirius Problem. Sirius overacts *Big Time* in the Shrieking Shack. I mean, he is really chewing the scenery there. He has good reason to be miffed (confronting the man who set him up), but the clawing the air and all is almost over the top. There's also the Hagrid Problem. Giving Dudley a pig tail. Slamming Karkaroff against a tree. Falling completely to pieces when the chips are down. Hagrid overreacts, too. I hope we can get past the Sirius and Hagrid Problem, though. Because if you look at other characters, the ones who seem to overreact and overact are often the villians. Voldemort and "Leave him to me!" Pettigrew and his sobbing, trembling, begging, crying. And the Ever So Evil To The Core Snape, who loses his cool entirely both in the Shrieking Shack and afterward when Black escapes. Cindy From dicentra at xmission.com Thu May 30 17:00:28 2002 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:00:28 -0000 Subject: Official Philip Nel Question #9: House Elves (include... In-Reply-To: <14c.e9240be.2a26f644@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39194 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., elfundeb at a... wrote: > Debbie observes: > I think it's very possible that the house-elves' current condition of > servitude is the result of a magical contract entered into between the > house-elves and wealthy wizards with castles and manor-houses; house-elves > pledged themselves use their magic solely to serve their master or house in > exchange for lifetime care and protection. I ran across this in a recent re-reading of CoS (Scholastic 29, emphasis mine): "Yeah, Mum's always wishing we had a house-elf to do the ironing," said George. "But all we've got is a lousy old ghoul in the attic and gnomes in the garden. House-elves *come with* big old manors and castles and places like that; you wouldn't catch one in our house..." Do house-elves "come with" mansions and castles the way roaches come with cheap motels? Is the mansion the house-elf's natural habitat? George certainly seems to imply it. Maybe if you build a mansion you automatically get house-elves. Whether it's their choice (of sorts) or they're magically or psychologically drawn to mansions, I can't say: we simply don't know enough. At any rate, it does answer the question of why the Weasleys don't have a house-elf, even though you don't have to pay them: they don't have the right kind of house. > > <@ > /___' > > (The copyright to this L.O.O.N.* belongs to Dicentra, who graciously loaned it to me.) > > *League Of Obsessive Nitpickers --Dicentra, who is more loony than LOONy > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ladjables at yahoo.com Thu May 30 17:28:29 2002 From: ladjables at yahoo.com (ladjables) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 10:28:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Official Philip Nel Question #9: House Elves (include... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020530172829.65033.qmail@web20401.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39195 --- dicentra63 wrote: > I ran across this in a recent re-reading of CoS > (Scholastic 29, emphasis mine): > > "Yeah, Mum's always wishing we had a house-elf to do > the ironing," said George. "But all we've got is a > lousy old ghoul in the attic and gnomes in the > garden. House-elves *come with* big old manors and > castles and places like that; you wouldn't catch one > in our house..." > > Do house-elves "come with" mansions and castles the > way roaches come with cheap motels? Is the mansion > the house-elf's natural habitat? George certainly > seems to imply it. Maybe if you build a mansion you > automatically get house-elves. Whether it's their > choice (of sorts) or they're magically or > psychologically drawn to mansions, I can't > say: we simply don't know enough. > > At any rate, it does answer the question of why the > Weasleys don't have a house-elf, even though you > don't have to pay them: they don't have the right > kind of house. I've also been mulling over the historical attachment of house-elves to castles and mansions. Could "house"-elf have originally referred to the noble, pureblood, wizarding family the elf serves, as in House of Windsor, House Atreides, etc.? Maybe house-elves came with ancestral manors because these properties were owned by old families such as the Crouches and Malfoys, although I don't know if they qualify as the royal dynasties of the WW. Perhaps, as society changed, pureblood families disintegrated and some house-elves were displaced, so the Relocation Office was established to redirect house-elves. Or, maybe these mansions became the homes of the nouveau-riche, and house-elves were retained, prized as signifiers of "old-wealth". Assuming though the attachment to property or person may have blurred over time. Does this make a lick of sense? Still giggling at the roach motel comparison though! Ama __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From skelkins at attbi.com Thu May 30 17:39:08 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:39:08 -0000 Subject: Authorial Intent, Fan Readings and "Canon" (WAS: Authorial Intent/CARP) In-Reply-To: <5b.284ec274.2a226a21@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39196 Note: in places in this post I use the terms "fan" and "fannish" to refer to a particular style of reading and a particular type of engagement with the text. Unfortunately, these words have extremely negative connotations. If there had been suitable synonyms, I would have used them instead. Sadly, however, there aren't. So please do try to bear in mind while reading this message that although "fannish" is often considered a derogatory term (while "academic" is more positively connoted), I intend no value judgements upon these two modes of reading. "Fannish" readings are perfectly respectable and indeed, even instinctive. In fact, reading in this manner is generally what we do when we read for pleasure; without it, fiction itself would be very unlikely to exist at all. The difference between simply "reading" and fannish reading, as I see it, is that fan communities have established an entire mode of *analysis* based on this mode of approach. They do analyze texts critically -- and sometimes very critically indeed! -- but they do so *within the context of the mode of reading for pleasure.* Fandoms in some ways therefore bridge the gap between the completely unselfconscious act of reading a work of fiction for pleasure and the academic style of analyzing a text. ----- Eloise wrote: > Following Elkins' first exposition of these ideas, back in > February, I posted a long-forgotten note commenting from the > perspective of my own background, in music. I do remember your thoughtful response, Eloise! I did mean to reply to it at the time, actually, but it, er, was thoughtful. You know, as in "required thought?" And back in those days I seem to remember feeling far less willing than I am now to respond to things once some time had passed (Silly Elkins!), so I'm afraid that I just let it slide. I remember that the part of your post that really stymied me was when you asked about JKR's notes: all of those infamous shoeboxes full of papers that she occasionally shows to reporters. That was a real stumper for me, and now I see that you have raised the issue again -- thus forcing me once more to think. You people really do help to keep me honest. You know that? Eloise: > One of the things that I think may be at the root of some of the > anxiety about JKR's authorial intentions is the *unpublished* > canon, so to speak. Yes, I agree. Even leaving aside for the moment the question of those pesky notes, the books are effectively a *serial,* which means that it is quite natural for readers to speculate about future canonical events. Such speculation almost invariably involves the attempt to second-guess the author's conscious intent because, well, how else would one go about it? The in-progress nature of the series is even more anxiety-provoking, I think, when it comes to literary analysis than it is when it comes to speculation. It is very much a part of the nature of speculation to be "disproved" by later canon. It does not feel nearly as natural to me to contemplate the notion of a work of literary analysis being "disproved." Perhaps this is because we are accustomed to analyzing completed texts, while speculation is the province of serialized fiction? I don't know for sure. But I do know that while I personally feel perfectly content with the knowledge that Book Five, when (and if) if ever comes out, will almost certainly sink many a speculative theory, I find it rather distressing to contemplate the notion that the next volume might well serve to undercut completely one of my favored *thematic* readings. > Perhaps one of the reasons for concern over whether interpretations > are canonical or not is that JKR has made it very public that there > are 'right' answers to many of the questions we ask, 'right' > answers that are sitting in her little notebooks, perhaps 'right' > answers that will never be revealed. She has. I myself tend to suspect, though, that her fictional universe is not really nearly as elaborately defined in those notes as many of us enjoy imagining it to be. The books really are just riddled with inconsistencies, which leads me to suspect that the Master Plan is probably not nearly as masterfully planned as JKR might enjoy leading her readers to believe it to be. > Now, as long as these remain unpublished, remain in her private > domain, they are not, by Elkins' definition (I think), 'canon' . > The problem that I see is that we are dealing with an author who > conveys a strong sense of authorial intent, of wishing to control > her creation, whilst intentionally withholding parts of it. The > suggestion is thus that the unpublished information *is* canon, > which to JKR, it presumably is, as it's all part of her carefully > thought-out scheme. I think that this might come down to what you were saying before, about works of art only truly existing *as* art in the interplay between creator and audience. So long as that information continues to be withheld, then to my mind it is very much the same as the author's own internal thoughts on her fiction. To the author herself, of course, her thoughts on her own work *are* the absolute truth about the fictive reality. "Canon," though, is a term that I think really only has relevance to the reader. Of course, once that information is released to the public, then the situation might change, depending very much on the context in which one is discussing the *uses* of canon. It would, for example, be possible to write a literary analysis of _The Lord of the Rings_ without recourse to any of Tolkien's other published Middle Earth material. If one were analysing the trilogy as a work of fiction, then it would seem to me quite reasonable to set out with the ground rule that one was considering the work as a discrete entity, and thus, for the purposes of that project, choosing not to recognize material contained within _The Hobbit_ or _The Silmarillion_ as relevant to the task at hand. If one were writing what one hoped to be a perfectly canonically loyal Middle Earth fanfic, on the other hand, then one would presumably want to accept all of the published writings and notes and shopping lists, and whatever other tat Christopher Tolkien chose to have published after his father's death, as "canon." When it comes to the HP books, I tend to approach them primarily as a work of fiction. I'm therefore predisposed to accept only material contained within the scope of the books themselves as "canon." But of course, people differ widely in their approach to this issue. > One of the fascinating things about the Potterverse is this feeling > that we are glimpsing part of another world, a world that seems to > be (apparently claims to be) internally consistent (aren't many of > our threads concerned with trying to work out these consistencies, > smooth out the apparent contradictions?), a world, in other words > that has some kind of real, objective truth about it. Indeed, this is one of the major distinctions between "fan" readings and academic ones. Fandoms are characterized by the tendency to discuss the fictive universe as if it is a real place, existing independently not only of the author's intent, but even of the canonical text itself. So, for example, one often finds fanfiction which takes as its starting premise the point at which the "real" characters (in other words, the real people upon whom the canon characters were "based") first encounter or first learn of the existence of their fictive counterparts. (They are almost inevitably appalled by the terrible "lies" that the author has told about them in the text.) You also find the "moral inversion" version of this fic, in which the canonical text itself is revealed to be nothing but a slanderous piece of propaganda distributed by the canonical heroes - - who of course are revealed to be in truth the villains of the piece. Stories in which the author is revealed to be an emigrant or a refugee from the fictive world are also very common. These story premises are fanfic classics. They can be found in all fandoms. They are ubiquitous. The fannish interest in explaining away canon's internal inconsistencies and plot holes without recourse to external argument is also a symptom of this same phenomenon. Even while understanding that the *real* reason for some seeming inconsistency within the text is likely one of authorial strategy (or even of simple authorial error), fan readers will nonetheless always try to come up with some "in-world" explanation for it. This reflects the fan's preference for a style of reading which grants the fictive universe the status of objective reality. > This feeling that we are talking about a world with an objective > reality sits ill at ease alongside our intellectual realisation > that it is in fact a fictional world, one which we are free to > interpret according to our own lights. I feel this may account for > some of the contradictions in the way we choose to interpret it. Yes. We see a nice mix of approaches on this list, I think. Some posts, such as those which attempt to find in-world ways to reconcile "FLINTS," are quite deeply (and also generally very self- consciously) based on the assumptions of fan reading. Others are more academic in their approach, allowing for the recognition of factors such as authorial error and strategy. Many combine the two approaches, or else make it explicit when they are moving from one form of analysis to the other ("I'm sure that it was really just a FLINT. But here's one way that we could go about explaining it..."). (One of the nice things about this list from my perspective, BTW, is that people here generally *are* aware of the difference. They can therefore jump back and forth between the two types of reading without undue difficulty, and can mark in a clear fashion when they are toggling their mode of approach. This cannot be said for the Usenet groups that I have lurked about on, where the population has tended to be both much younger and *far* less self-aware.) -- Elkins From Edblanning at aol.com Thu May 30 17:44:41 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:44:41 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco is Ever So Lame Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39197 Grace: > I don't think using Draco to appeal to Voldemort though Lucius Malfoy is > that plausible. Voldemort had the opportunity to interrogate Bertha, and as > he said, he had learned quite a bit from her. He also had the opportunity > to interrogate Quirrel who was a much closer and direct contact to Snape. > Quirrel could easily have sat there in the teachers' lounge, taking in the > conversations that were about Snape and passed his suspicious on the > Voldemort. Has someone suggested this? Even with Voldemort powerless and without the prospect of his return, it was sensible for Snape to keep on the right side of Lucius. They were *both* DEs. Snape knows or must assume that Lucius was, as it seems to be almost common knowledge. His support for Voldemort certainly is. Lucius may or may not know about Snape, depending on how much individual DEs know about the identities of the others and how public the Pensieve outing of Snape really was. But......Lucius is a school governor and has the other governors in his thrall, at least through PoA. He has got away with his past through power and influence. If Snape were to displease him in any way, you can bet he'd do his best to get rid of him. I don't know whether he is at Hogwarts for protection or not, but I'm sure Dumbledore wants him there and that he does not want to risk dismissal. I have argued in the past that Snape's conversion is not widely known. The WW is not notable for its tolerance and I do not think that the parents or governors would accept even a repentant DE as a member of staff, any more than an outed werewolf would have been acceptable. Tabouli and I have both argued that even if Voldemort knows about the Pensieve outing, Snape may already have persuaded him that he was going to pretend to be a double agent on Voldemort's behalf. Sirius has hears no anger addressed against Snape in Azkaban, which suggests that the imprisoned DEs either know nothing of it or believe it to be a ruse. I do not think that Snape's past or present loyalties would be a topic of staff-room conversation. It doesn't seem that all the staff are in Dumbledore's complete confidence in respect to his campaign against Voldemort. Madam Pomfrey, who must surely have seen a lot in her time, and is very discreet, is specifically excluded from knowing anything at the end of GoF. I don't think Snape would encourage such discussion and I certainly wouldn't risk discussing him behind his back. He suspected Quirrell from the start. I think he would have been very careful about what he let slip in front of him. Can't you just imagine.... 'If I ever hear that any one of you has mentioned my name in front of Professor Quirrell.......' I'm not sure about resourceful and cunning Voldemort, either. He wasn't stupid at school, certainly, but that power does seem to have gone to his head and he does seem to make mistakes of the 'phoenix tears, I forgot' variety. Snape on the other hand *is* resourceful and cunning and intelligent. Not that I'm prejudiced, of course. ;-) > > I think Voldemort knows about Snape being a spy and in the next book it will > come out. Perhaps its Snape who dies in the next book. Don't. Ever.Say. That. :-) > impression that Snape has the job of going back to > Voldemort as the spy again and is in peril because of the knowledge > collected from Bertha and > Quirrel. I agree that he's probably going back and is certainly in peril (and I'm tempted to say that the anticipation of this peril is one of the things that gives Snape his hurt-comfort appeal, but that's just because I'm a Bent Snapefan! ;-) ) > At the beginning of GoF, first chapter,Voldemort says in Harry's dream: > "One more murder ... my faithful servant at Hogwarts ... " > > That could be read as: > "One more murder ... Snape, my faithful servant at Hogwarts...." Well, it could, but I prefer the more conventional reading. > And in chapter 23, when he talks to the Death Eaters, > > At the mention of Dumbledore's name, the members of the circle stirred, and > some muttered and shook their heads. Voldemort ignored them. > "It is a disappointment to me ... I confess myself disappointed ..." > > Could he be speaking of Snape specifically? Possibly, though of course, he may have Malfoy in mind as well. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Edblanning at aol.com Thu May 30 17:44:55 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:44:55 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: FF/SHIP: Authorial Intent, Canonical Plausibility, Dr... Message-ID: <19e.30595c6.2a27bf17@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39198 David: > > Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > > > I completely reject the notion of authorial intent as the sole > means of interpretation. I highly commend the following brief essay, > which sets forth my thoughts almost exactly: > > > > http://mesastate.edu/~blaga/theoryindex/intentionx.html > > > > I particularly like this bit: > > > > " We know as well that texts can signify more than one thing, so > it's unrealistic to assume that only > > one "right" meaning exists. What the author says about her own text > is nothing more than a reader's response and therefore no more valid > than another reader's response." > > > > See also -- > > > > http://www.brocku.ca/english/jlye/meaning.html > > > > Particularly -- > > Does the meaning exist 'in' the text? > > > > As a text is in a sense only ink-marks on a page, and as all > meanings are culturally created and transferred, the argument that > the meaning is 'in' the text is not a particularly persuasive one. > > > > I think this is the heart of the dispute that rages intermittently > on the list with regard to issues where there is a wide divergence of > opinion. I have strong issues with the "textual meaning" school of > thought, under which I ought to be able to read "the words printed on > the page" & come to the conclusion that Draco is a flat caricature > who will never be redeemed. Someone who thinks the reader-response > theory that I favor is a load of bunk will naturally come to the > conclusion that I'm being a "resisting reader" in coming to my > interpretation of Draco. That's okay. I think we should just > acknowledge though that there are different ways of approaching > literary interpretation. > > David now: > > I do agree with Elkins and Penny on this (and on Draco). > > But I also agree with Jim Ferer, who wrote: > > >I think it's perfectly fair for [readers] to infer what the author's > intent is, so long as they can defend their view. We try facts all > the time based on a preponderance of the evidence. (And end up wrong > much of the time). It's also fair to criticize a fic if it seems too > far off JKR's intent to be believeable. > > What does it mean, and how is it possible to say, that > (say) 'Dumbledore is evil' is an unlikely reading of canon, or a > perverse one? How can we say that a given interpretation > is 'subversive'? If I assert that the reading you find subversive is > my instinctive reading (something of the sort must occur on the R/H - > H/H divide, I think), are you reduced to saying 'fine for you, > Eloise, (out of her depth in a sea of literary theory, but gamely trying to keep her head above water): Logically, from the above, it is only possible to regard a reading as subversive if you also subscribe to the school of thought which believes in the possibility of devining and being true to the author's intent. I think the difference perhaps lies in the *reader's* intent: does the reader *intend* to be true to the author's intent, or is the reader consciously quite happy to entertain any interpretation which the text might support, whether likely to have been in the author's mind, or not. Those of us who are consciously happy to entertain readings that may not have been in JKR's mind happily use the term 'subversive' (when perhaps another term would be better) whereas those who wish to be true to what they believe are the authors intentions, might regard it as more pejorative. If I believed that your instinctive interpretation of something could not be supported by the text, then I would regard it as beyond subversive, it would be wrong! And I might therefore try to persuade. If an interpretation was canonically supported, but perhaps unlikely (and I thought that its author's intentions were not to try to discern authorial intent), then I would defend it (whether I subscribed to it or not) as a subversive reading. Something like.....ooh, what shall I pick? Well, Evil!Minerva would be perhaps an example, which I suspect might just have been slightly tongue-in-cheek. Evil!Snape? Yeah. I don't think he'll turn out to be evil, but I can make out a case and it is just a possibility. Of course, if he turns out to *be* evil after all, then the reading will prove *not* to have been subversive, after all. (My head's starting to hurt.) If I could see a textual justification for your belief but I could use the same evidence to make a different case, then ultimately I think agreeing to differ is the only option. On something like the H/H-R/H divide (not that I know anything about SHIPping), where two groups hold sincere and strongly divided yet canonically supported opinions, I think we have to acknowledge that authorial intent cannot be divined, whether desirable or not, and that neither view can be labelled 'subversive'. > > The above thinking does not bother me very much as far as Harry > Potter is concerned, but I think it has the potential for making me > feel very lost and alone if it is applied to speaking, writing, and > reading outside fiction. For example, I am starting to wonder if I > am sure I have interpreted Penny's, Elkins', and Jim's > posts 'correctly' (if there *is* a 'correctly') - perhaps my > interpretation of their writings is completely disconnected from > theirs. > > Don't think about it! I have just been trying to tackle this issue myself and I completely agree! Life demands that we make the assumption that we understand what others mean, that we can identify our experiences with theirs, that we use words and concepts to mean pretty much the same thing. Otherwise, as you say, we are completely alone and can never meaningfully communicate with anyone. We know we get it wrong sometimes, but that knowledge perhaps reassures us that at other times we succeed. (One of the disconcerting things about this list is that we tend not to get the reassurance of knowing when people *do* agree with us.) > > Who knows? Perhaps we're all just figments of your imagination. ;-) But only if you have a very strange imagination. Eloise [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Thu May 30 17:50:00 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 18:50:00 +0100 Subject: The flying motorbike References: Message-ID: <006d01c20802$6b6604c0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 39199 > > This must mean Sirius Black had been riding it for quite some time. > > However, Arthur Weasly got in trouble for owning a flying car. Why > didn't Sirius get in trouble for owning a flying motorbike? Does this > mean Sirius Black had some sort of special permission? > Maybe not. After all as an habitual rule breaker and not in the Ministry of Magic maybe he just got overlooked ;-) If the motorbike was built to fly initially (and nothing says it can't be) then it would not be illegal I suppose. Felicia Who wishes less people drove cars and more people drove motorbikes like her.... From skelkins at attbi.com Thu May 30 17:56:26 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:56:26 -0000 Subject: SHIP: Authorial Intent, Canonical Plausibility, Draco/Hermione; Draco is Ever so Evil In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39200 David wrote: > What does it mean, and how is it possible to say, that say) > 'Dumbledore is evil' is an unlikely reading of canon, or a perverse > one? How can we say that a given interpretation is 'subversive'? If > I assert that the reading you find subversive is my instinctive > reading (something of the sort must occur on the R/H - H/H divide, > I think), are you reduced to saying 'fine for you, David', or have > you any rational basis for persuading me different? Well, subversion itself is really in the mind of the beholder (as is instinct). "Cupid's Snitch," the Sirius/Florence-as-Mrs.-Lestrange backstory that I once proposed here, for example, was a subversive reading of the canon because *I* thought it subversive. It is perfectly possible, however, that somebody else could have come by that same reading on their own as an automatic interpretation of the story (as indeed, there is *plenty* of evidence for it in the text). To that person, it would not be subversive but instinctive, and so he would probably become very cross with you if you accused him of deliberately perverting JKR's intent. Indeed, my initial emotional response to the discovery that one of my own instinctive understandings of the story ("Snape is still emotionally invested in his old DE colleagues") was not only a minority opinion, but also assumed by many to be deliberate subversion, was to feel both taken aback and rather out of sorts. (My secondary response, of course, was to become fascinated by the issue and so to pester everyone on the subject until they all got tired of it -- but that's just me.) One man's painfully earnest reading is another man's subversion. So, yes. "Fine for you, David" really is about as far as that particular dispute can go. Generally speaking, though, when people stand accused of favoring "subversive" or "perverse" readings on this list, they respond by trying to point out the ways in which the text does indeed support their instinctive reading. In short, they launch into literary analysis. Most literary analysis operates under the assumption that texts suggest meaning to readers in accordance with fairly consistent and predictable rules, and that that this process is therefore, while admittedly not nearly as quantifiable as physics or chemistry, nonetheless still *explicable.* Literary analysis attempts to "defend" a given reading by showing how the text adheres to established rules of authorial conveyance. So, for example, while I did not myself find Draco/Hermione at all an instinctive reading of the text, once I learned that so many people had found it to be one, I was tempted to return to the text to try to figure out *how* it had managed to suggest that possibility to so many of its readers. Similarly, while H/H is not at all an instinctive reading for me, its vast popularity leads me to believe that the text is indeed offering its readers *something* to support that reading. The shipping debates on this list offer quite a few insights into the specific critical "rules" that have led so many to come by this reading. (Ebony's recent reference back to her Lacanian analysis of H/H is an excellent example of how someone might choose to do this in an explicit, deliberate, and academic fashion.) Of course, literary criticism is not a science but an art, which means that not only the rules themselves but also the way in which they are prioritized can vary tremendously depending on the "school" of analysis one favors. A Jungian critic will privilege certain rules of textual suggestion very highly indeed, while devaluing (or even rejecting completely) others. Critical approaches also go change with the era, they go in and out of fashion. As Penny pointed out, most of the popular schools of contemporary literary criticism don't accord the author's conscious intent much pride of place at *all* when it comes to prioritizing the rules. The same could not be said a century ago, and whether it will still hold true a century from now is anyone's guess. Life is short, art long, and literary criticism something in between. ;-) > The above thinking does not bother me very much as far as Harry > Potter is concerned, but I think it has the potential for making me > feel very lost and alone if it is applied to speaking, writing, and > reading outside fiction. I'd advise you to avoid the post-modern theorists. They will likely distress you. Miscommunications are, alas, a fact of life. Surely that's the reason that we have laid in place so very many social constructs which are designed to avert or to mitigate their emotionally harmful effects? It seems to me that nearly all of what we usually call "etiquette" is really designed to...well, to clarify the author's emotional intent, so to speak. > Is anybody out there? Not really. We're all just constructs of your own mind. After all, sollipsism is a *very* popular reading of reality among the text's adolescent readership. There therefore must be *something,* either embedded in the text itself or in the way in which the text interacts with cultural and societal factors, that is serving to encourage that reading. Right? -- Elkins (who has decided that if she ever decides to go back to school, she's going to blow off all of those Ever So Dead classical guys and go straight for the po-mo warriors instead, even if it does mean that she'll finally be forced to learn French.) From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Thu May 30 18:36:59 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:36:59 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39201 In a message dated 5/30/2002 7:45:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rusalka at ix.netcom.com writes: << Hermione is a Gryffindor and therefore, by definition, will never be a favorite of Snape's. If Draco is the best Potions student among the Slytherins, that would be enough to make Snape favor him. And if doing so puts Snape in a more favorable position with Lucius -- so much the better, right? >> I like what you said about Snape getting himself into a more favorable position with Lucius - Snape may have switched sides, but I'll bet he knows he'll have to spy for D again if the time ever comes. Also, Snape may just like Draco. He seems interested in Potions, and w'e've never read about Draco being bad at it (or good either, but humor me). Draco also may appeal to Snape because he could remind him of himself when he was younger. He's cocky and proud, and seemingly on the brink of the DE's (with his father and all), but might be able to avoid the problems that Snape went through. Now, I know that this is mostly speculation, but it's how I've always imagined the senario. Oh yea - and Draco hates Harry, so that has to get him on Snape's good side :). *Chelsea* From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Thu May 30 18:42:17 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 14:42:17 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] The flying motorbike Message-ID: <139.eff4784.2a27cc89@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39202 I always figured that either he had some sort of permit and invisibility enchantment on it (or something to that degree)....or he was just very lucky he didn't get caught.....after all, Arthur's car wasn't discovered until Harry and Ron crashed it on the lawn in front of Hogwarts - until then, no one really knew he had it. *Chelsea* From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu May 30 19:38:07 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 19:38:07 -0000 Subject: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39203 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Chelsea2162 at a... wrote: > In a message dated 5/30/2002 7:45:27 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > rusalka at i... writes: > > << > Hermione is a Gryffindor and therefore, by definition, will never be > a favorite of Snape's. If Draco is the best Potions student among > the Slytherins, that would be enough to make Snape favor him. And > if doing so puts Snape in a more favorable position with Lucius -- > so much the better, right? >> > > I like what you said about Snape getting himself into a more favorable > position with Lucius - Snape may have switched sides, but I'll bet he knows > he'll have to spy for D again if the time ever comes. Also, Snape may just > like Draco. He seems interested in Potions, and w'e've never read about Draco > being bad at it (or good either, but humor me). Draco also may appeal to > Snape because he could remind him of himself when he was younger. He's cocky > and proud, and seemingly on the brink of the DE's (with his father and all), > but might be able to avoid the problems that Snape went through. Now, I know > that this is mostly speculation, but it's how I've always imagined the > senario. > Oh yea - and Draco hates Harry, so that has to get him on Snape's good > side :). > > *Chelsea* From chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com Thu May 30 17:21:02 2002 From: chrisnlorrie at yahoo.com (alora67) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 17:21:02 -0000 Subject: Question about symbols and colors..... Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39204 I have been re-reading the stoned!Harry thread and found it VERY interesting. It's not something I had thought about before. Anyway, I was wondering where all of you ("you" being those who know about the colors/symbols/etc) got your information on the colors and symbols and animal meanings. Is there a website(s) where I can study up on this? If you have some sites you can send me to, it would be much appreciated...... Alora From shindemo_ii at yahoo.com Thu May 30 16:28:38 2002 From: shindemo_ii at yahoo.com (Kate Tanski) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 09:28:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Muggle Clothing [Was Newbie Intro and Question] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020530162838.44892.qmail@web14907.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39205 --- joanne0012 wrote: > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Kate Tanski wrote: > > Critic Anthony Holden has labeled the HP series as belonging to the > > 'weary tradition' of school novels a la Tom Brown's Schooldays. > There > > are some startling parallels. > > You need to read Pico Iyer's wonderful article, "Playing Fields of > Hogwarts," which > appeared in the New Yorker in late 1999. He argues that Hogwarts is > in many > ways an accurate reproduction of the classical English boarding > schools; as such, > it would not be derivative of Tom Brown's Schooldays, but rather both > would be > impressions of the genuine places. Here's a link to the article. > > http://partners.nytimes.com/books/99/10/10/bookend/bookend.html > Thank you for the link. I have, actually, already read this article and have found it incredibly useful. Being an American, I was struck immediately by his statement that Hogwarts 'magical' rites of passage would seem normal to anyone who has gone through British Public Schools. Prefects, houses, even robes. I remember being startled by the official Hogwarts uniforms when I saw the first tralier and thinking "But those are just like British School Uniforms! Not real Wizards' Robes!" It does make me wonder, though. About the use in the film of Muggle clothing but the apparent rarity of this as implied by GoF and the infamous clothing scenes . . . How are these to be reconsiled? =Kate= __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From kevinleonardcox at hotmail.com Thu May 30 19:57:58 2002 From: kevinleonardcox at hotmail.com (elsingerman) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 19:57:58 -0000 Subject: Flying Motorbike Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39206 >However, Arthur Weasly got in trouble for owning a flying car. Why >didn't Sirius get in trouble for owning a flying motorbike? Does this >mean Sirius Black had some sort of special permission? IIRC, when Molly was yelling at Arthur in CoS, she said something like "You made that loophole when you wrote that law!" If Arthur wrote that law, it might be fairly recent, meaning it wouldn't have existed back in Sirius's day. Kevin (By the way, this is my first post here. Hello everybody!) From skelkins at attbi.com Thu May 30 20:02:32 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 20:02:32 -0000 Subject: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39207 A few more thoughts on "hurt-comfort," the dynamic whereby female readers tend to become erotically interested in male characters who suffer, provided that this suffering is depicted in certain specific ways. ----- Why don't all characters partaking of the hurt-comfort dynamic appeal equally to all readers? Irene asked: > If "Hurt-Comfort" is all it takes, how would you explain then the > almost perfect dichotomy of Sirius and Snape fan clubs? I know 1 > (one) person who likes them both, for the rest they appear quite > incompatible. The Catlady objected: > I am only one of the myriad of HPfGU women who rush, whenever > someone claims that there is a dichotomy between fancying Severus > and fancying Sirius, that *I* fancy both. But I don't fancy Sirius > as Hurt-Comfort... Don't worry, Catlady. I believe you. (And what a terrific job you did of describing the entire wretched romantic dynamic in more detail, too! As well as of explaining why poor hurt little woobie Neville doesn't really qualify for membership in the Hurt-Comfort club. Great job!) I do think that the hurt-comfort dynamic is probably what has made Snape, Sirius and Lupin all so very *popular* as crush objects, but obviously there can be (and are) lots of people who are attracted to them on other grounds as well. Me, I like both of them myself, but I don't actually *fancy* either one of them. In fact, I was genuinely surprised when I first learned that so many people were drooling over Sirius and Snape. It honestly hadn't even occurred to me to view anyone but Lupin as a crush object. But then I sat back and thought about for a while and went: "Oh! Oh, yeah, okay, I guess that does make sense." I think that I get the appeal now, even if neither of them happens to do anything for me. Then, I don't find any of the kids erotically interesting either. I think that I can see where the Draco drooling (or the Harry drooling, for that matter) comes from, but it doesn't really have much effect on me. This is probably due to the age difference that Eloise cited. I've got two decades on Harry and his peers, and I tend to think of them as, well, as little kids. But once again, this is far from universal. Plenty of adult readers manage to get crushy about them anyway -- or about their own mental projections of the sorts of adults that they are likely to become. But to get back to Irene's question, I think that the dichotomy probably has a lot to do with what you want to be *left* with, once you have Healed The Broken Man And Made Him Whole. What sort of finished product best fulfills your inner model of the ideal fantasy lover? Fixed-up Sirius and Fixed-up Snape wouldn't really be at all the same sort of person. Fixed-Up Lupin (who really isn't for the hard-core FYIer anyway, as he only actually needs a tiny bit of tinkering), wouldn't be the same as either of them, but his appeal touches on aspects of both, making it far more likely that the same person might fancy both Snape and Lupin or both Sirius and Lupin than both Snape and Sirius. But of course, as the Catlady pointed out, there are still plenty of exceptions even to that general rule. And human nature being what it is, there probably are people out there who have a thing for Neville (or for Hagrid, or for Moody, or for whomever) in spite of these characters' disqualifying characteristics. Hey, for all I know, there could even be someone out there who lusts after Pettigrew. People can be very, uh, diverse that way. I'm just making broad sweeping generalizations here. ;-) ----- Hey, so what about Ron, huh? What's wrong with Ron? *He* suffers, doesn't he? Penny asked: > How does Ron fit into this? Because I don't think he gets hurt so > very much ... Pippin immediately objected: > Poor ickle Ronniekins...not only does he suffer, but his suffering > goes ignored. And then itemized all of the places in canon we are witness to poor Ron's suffering. Hmmm. You know what's wrong with poor ickle Ronniekins? The author has it in for him, that's what! She just doesn't want Ron to see any action at all. She's always knocking his feet out from under him just when he rightfully *should* be racking up the crush points. Other characters in states of shock get to be "pale." Ron, even while struggling manfully and heroically with his broken leg, gets hit with "green." He defends Hermione -- and then winds up belching up slugs. He confronts his worst phobia -- and then vomits. I mean, it's just terrible. Just when the reader is all primed for developing a crush on Ron, the author smacks her in the face with something profoundly unerotic. It's downright cruel of her. Someone needs to send JKR a CRAB badge, that's what I say. Pippin: > I can't help but feel, you know, that Ron appeals to a more mature > taste (assuming he grows out of the jealousy thing), as he's a > character that can give comfort as well as receive it. Well, that ties into what the Catlady was saying before, I think, about her own attraction to Lupin being based on his own capacity for kindness and compassion, rather than to his need for the same. It's a different dynamic -- and a far less embarrassing one, IMO. Hurt- comfort really is pretty twisted, when it comes right down to it. As the Catlady wrote: > So the romantic heroine is Even More Bent: a masochist as well as a > sadist! Yeah. Hurt-comfort is kind of messed up, all right. But it's not really our fault, you know. It's society! Society is to blame! -- Elkins, who is herself sufficiently Bent that when she first saw the thread title "Imperius and Hurt-Comfort" she got all excited... and then noticed the addendum "(not at the same time)" and was so *profoundly* disappointed! From mercia at ireland.com Thu May 30 20:26:50 2002 From: mercia at ireland.com (meglet2) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 20:26:50 -0000 Subject: Names Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39208 We all know the importance JKR gives to names, right. The way they offer clues to significant elements of the plot or have symbolic importance. I mean we've kicked ourselves often enough on second and subsequent readings. (At least I have.) I ask you, Remus Lupin - how obvious can you get? The UK edition even featured a werwolf on the back cover illustration and I still didn't twig first time round. And the big black dog that Harry kept seeing. Be honest, how many of us thought of Sirius Black on first reading. And yet I've known for years that Sirius is another name for the dog star. I even read a children's fantasy novel years ago called 'Dogsbody' that used the idea of Sirius the dog star banished to earth in a dog's body. (And very good it was too and I often wonder if JKR had read it but all that is OT). Not to mention Vol - de - mort and all the death eater business etc etc. So anyone ever thought if 'Potter' could have some sort of symbolic importance? Potters shape things don't they. (Shape shifter anyone?) They mould and create from clay. The potter at work is even a biblical image of God creating humanity, though that is probably OTT. I'm not sure that I can really come up with any earth shattering significance for Harry's surname but given JKR's previous form it does strike me as possible that there is some importance in Harry being a Potter; indeed the last of the Potters apparantly. At any rate it seems more than a name picked at random from the phone book. Any thoughts? Mercia From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Thu May 30 20:36:58 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 20:36:58 -0000 Subject: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39209 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > Fixed-up Sirius and Fixed-up Snape wouldn't really be at all the same > sort of person. Fixed-Up Lupin (who really isn't for the hard-core > FYIer anyway, as he only actually needs a tiny bit of tinkering), > wouldn't be the same as either of them, but his appeal touches on > aspects of both, making it far more likely that the same person might > fancy both Snape and Lupin or both Sirius and Lupin than both Snape > and Sirius. > Which goes a long way toward explaining why I crush on both Snape and Sirius, but not on Lupin. I'm *extremely* Bent, see, and the problem with Lupin for me is that he handles his suffering too well. I mean, Snape's gone all bitter and twisted, stewing alone in his dungeon over wrongs done to him years ago. Sirius is oh-so-damaged and post-traumatic, eyes going all haunted whenever somebody says "Azkaban." But Lupin? Lupin goes along through life, being kind to everyone who needs his kindness and forgiving to everyone who needs his forgiveness, giving out chocolate at the appropriate moments. I admire the heck out of him, but he's just too darn *sane* for me to crush on, Edge or no Edge. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From meboriqua at aol.com Thu May 30 20:50:11 2002 From: meboriqua at aol.com (jenny_ravenclaw) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 20:50:11 -0000 Subject: Official Philip Nel Question #9: House Elves (include... In-Reply-To: <14c.e9240be.2a26f644@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39210 Debbie wrote a super response to the House Elf questions and added one last comment here: >One last point. Gwen asked: Incidentally, did anyone notice that Winky actually does refer to herself in the first person a few times, whereas Dobby never does? Do you think this indicates a difference between the two of them, either in education or treatment or some other status difference, or is it a Flint?> > In CoS, ch. 2, Dobby states, "Sometimes they reminds *me* to do extra punishments." But I think it's a Flint. Winky's slip-ups may not be Flints. She may be so distraught that she forgets.> Aha! I finally have something to say that I don't think has been said yet! Perhaps Dobby refers to himself in the first person because he is more aware of his individuality than other elves are. It is his desire to be an individual separated from his masters that gives him his freedom, after all, and made him question his situation in the first place. Winky's sole concern is serving the Crouches; she does not think about herself. I am also one who believes quite strongly that the House Elves are very much enslaved. David Frankis brought up an excellent argument for this, which was that the elves are very much afraid of Hermione and her desire to help free them. They don't say "Bah! Get out of here, witch!" or laugh at her; they shrink away from both Hermione and Dobby and usher the Trio out of the kitchen when Hermione gets up on her soap box. That is an indicator (certainly to me) that they know freedom is something to fight for, not brush off, and they are very much afraid of how hard it may be to achieve freedom - or to try and then *not* to achieve it. Once again, I must bring up the example of my own students. In some ways, the House Elves are a metaphor for my own students, who lead fairly dismal lives and don't do much to change (I teach in a school in the Bronx for high school students who have not succeeded in other high schools. Our program is their last chance). In my Advisory just this week, we discussed how they are ridiculed and criticized by their friends when they make an effort to go to school every day and not hang out in the streets doing nothing. The ones who succeed are seen as a threat to the ones who do not, because the success stories remind the ones who stayed behind that they are *not* successful. Dobby may be very well seen as a threat to the other House Elves because he was freed without dire consquences, has found real paying work and is *happy*. Success is a scary thing to many. I also think, that, like my students, House Elves are simply afraid of change. Leaving their manors and castles and going out into the world and looking for work must be quite overwhelming for them. It is so much easier to stay where they are and do what they are trained to do. My students would rather get high every day than study for exams or write essays because it is so much easier. In the South, most slaves did not try to run away because, as bad as things were on the plantations, it was easier to stay knowing they had a chance to survive, than to run away and risk being caught and tortured or caught and murdered. The journey to freedom for them must have seemed almost impossible, which is what I think the House Elves think as well. --jenny from ravenclaw, always a member of S.P.E.W. *********************** From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu May 30 21:58:13 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:58:13 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame References: Message-ID: <010801c20825$194bb7c0$318901d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 39211 From: "naamagatus" : > > Assuming that Draco is not totally stupid, may be he is just > > genuinely interested in potions? After all, Snape appears to be an > > adequate teacher, who is passionate about his subject. The only > > reason Gryffindors do not enjoy Potions does not apply to Draco. So > > it's not too far-fetched for Draco to be Snape's favourite student > > just because he is good at his subject. > > > > Irene > > Uh, well, that won't work, 'cause Hermione is a better studnet than > Draco (in potions, as well as in everything else) and she's hardly a > favorite, is she? > I don't see a contradiction here. Hermione has better grades than Draco in everything, including Potions - if we take Lucius words literally. So Hermione is his best student, but Draco is his favourite - happens all the time in real life. If I had a pound for every teacher that gave me good grades without liking me... So, Voldemort disappeared after meeting baby Harry. Does Dumbledore believe he is gone for good? Not likely, if even Hagrid is not that optimistic. Lucius and his friends are up to no good, with or without Voldemort. So it is very probable that Dumbledore asked Snape to continue his game. If that is the case, Draco knew Snape before he came to Hogwarts. Irene From asilaite at hotmail.com Thu May 30 22:12:47 2002 From: asilaite at hotmail.com (anavenc) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:12:47 -0000 Subject: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39212 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > > > > Hmmm. You know what's wrong with poor ickle Ronniekins? The author > has it in for him, that's what! She just doesn't want Ron to see any > action at all. She's always knocking his feet out from under him just > when he rightfully *should* be racking up the crush points. > > Other characters in states of shock get to be "pale." Ron, even > while struggling manfully and heroically with his broken leg, gets > hit with "green." He defends Hermione -- and then winds up belching > up slugs. He confronts his worst phobia -- and then vomits. > > I mean, it's just terrible. Just when the reader is all primed for > developing a crush on Ron, the author smacks her in the face with > something profoundly unerotic. It's downright cruel of her. > > Someone needs to send JKR a CRAB badge, that's what I say. > Well, IMO, Rowling is trying to do it to Snape, too, and it doesn't work. When he is embarassed, he turns "a horrible brick-red color". When he is stressed, the spit flies out of his mouth. When he is frustrated, he becomes "twice as ugly as a gargoyle". He "shrieks" and "howls". I don't even mention the infamous greasy hair/yellow fingers/uneven teeth. And do readers find all this deterrent? *g* I always thought something went awry with Snape's characterization. Ana. From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Thu May 30 22:16:58 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 23:16:58 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes References: Message-ID: <018201c20827$b9cd9540$318901d5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 39213 Elkins wrote: > > I do think that the hurt-comfort dynamic is probably what has made > Snape, Sirius and Lupin all so very *popular* as crush objects, but > obviously there can be (and are) lots of people who are attracted to > them on other grounds as well. I was thinking and thinking and soul-searching and the conclusion is - no, it's not hurt-comfort or angst that attracts me to Snape. I find him the most attractive when he is on top of the things - like blasting Lockhart or for once really scaring Harry with veritaserum threat. The scene with the most hurt-comfort potential, the ending of PoA, does not fill me with desire to give him hug and make it all better, nope. The only desire I have at this particular moment is to be as far away from him as possible. :-) > And human nature being what it is, there probably are people out there > who have a thing for Neville (or for Hagrid, or for Moody, or for > whomever) in spite of these characters' disqualifying > characteristics. Hey, for all I know, there could even be someone > out there who lusts after Pettigrew. People can be very, uh, diverse > that way. I'm just making broad sweeping generalizations here. ;-) Nothing will surprise me after I've learnt about the following Lucius has. Irene From skelkins at attbi.com Thu May 30 22:32:26 2002 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:32:26 -0000 Subject: A Taste of Moody (no thanks) (was: Draco Malfoy is Ever So Lame & A Taste of Mo In-Reply-To: <61.204b04f3.2a23bc24@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39214 Oops! This really should have gone in with that last Hurt-Comfort post, I suppose, but I forgot all about it. So now Sexy!Moody gets to have his very own turn in the spotlight. ----- Cindy (hoping that I would someday write an essay making her feel better about her *issues* with Hagrid) wrote: > But . . . but . . . there is one male character who just doesn't > fit the pattern at all: Moody. Now, I just love Moody because > I'm drawn to his power and Toughness. And he sure has been injured > enough times. And he is so alone and desperately needs the love of > a good woman and all. Um. Yes, well, like I said. People are...diverse. ;) As for Hagrid, I seem to remember once getting myself into a spot of trouble with the Hagrid fans by calling him a "bigot." Wasn't that enough for you? Cindy: > But good grief, is there a single person out there who can make the > case that Moody is *sexy*? I mean it is difficult to even *type* > Sexy!Moody. And Eloise agreed: > I sure can't do it. Hmmm. Well, let's see now.... Sexy!Moody. Sexy!Moody. Sexy!Moody. Nope. Not having a problem with it. Although I *am* giggling over here, I'll have you know. As for why there are no takers for Dead Sexy Moody, though...well, Eloise suggested: > There's a difference, I suppose between 'having suffered' and being > horribly mutilated. . . . Moody physically appears to be > irredeemable as a sex-object. Yeah. "Horribly mutilated" is generally considered a turn-off, I'm afraid. Even more so than greasy hair and sallow skin and yellow teeth. Snape's physical drawbacks aren't sufficient to put him out of the running. Moody's are. Monstrously unjust, but there you have it. Also, he's kind of old. Oh, yes, yes, I *know.* What a terrible thing to say! That horrible ageist Elkins! But the books don't, on the whole, seem terribly interested in providing older readers with age-aligned crush material, much as they don't provide much in the way of crush material for readers who are attracted to women rather than to men. The Dead Sexy Mrs. Lestrange is just about all that's on offer for the gynophilic, and she's Ever So Evil, so unless you get a kick out of that whole dominatrix schtick, you're really out of luck. You're left with McGonagall, who is kind of hot in her own way, but who also never actually gets to *do* anything. The books are really very unfair that way. While I'm on this line of thought, it's interesting to note that Harry's first impression of Lupin on the train is that, in spite of his grey hairs, he is "young." I have to say that I've always found this completely unbelievable. Thirteen year old boys do *not* consider men in their mid-30s "young." In fact, it's been my experience that adolescents view people in their thirties as positively *ancient.* I've always suspected that we're seeing a little bit of blatant authorial intent seeping through in that passage, myself. I think that JKR wanted the reader to view Lupin as "young" primarily because she wanted to designate him as a romantically appealing character right from the very start. Cindy: > Moody suffers, both before GoF and during GoF. But for some reason, > I worry that I might not even *like* Real Moody, let alone > sympathize with him. It does seem that JKR is trying to show him > hurt yet brave about it. JKR really lays it on hick: "Stunned . . . > very weak. . . . he's freezing." He's unconscious. He's also missing his prosthetics, which is fairly pathetic, and not in at all a romantically appealing way. We assume that he has indeed been brave about the whole thing because we have deduced both from Crouch Jr's masquerade and from all of the things that we've been told about Moody that he is brave and heroic and Tough. But we don't actually *see* him suffering nobly anywhere. In that scene, for example, he is unconscious and therefore incapable of doing much of anything, other than serving as the utterly passive recipient of a medical evaluation. The overall effect, I think, is far more one of pathos than of romantic suffering: Moody comes across there as a weak and victimized old man, which isn't at all a romantic image. > Later, Moody is in the hospital and is "motionless." And once again: he's utterly passive. Complete passivity doesn't inspire very much in the way of romantic engagement. > Moody fights bravely before being subdued by Crouch Jr. and > Wormtail. Yeah, he does, but we're only *told* that. We don't actually see it happening. This gets back to what I was saying in my previous post, about readers being far more strongly influenced by things that they see directly than by the things that they learn in a more indirect fashion. We never *see* Moody struggle valiantly against a situation in which he is nonetheless compelled to suffer. We're just told that it happened, which isn't at all the same thing. > And why is Moody's portrayal at the staff table "extremely twitchy, > jumping every time someone spoke to him" so unsatisfactory? Was > that JKR's attempt to make sure that we don't begin to identify to > closely with Moody? Is he supposed to be something other than > heroic, hmmmmm? Well, much as I would *love* to take it as evidence of Evil!Moody, if pressed to play 'guess the authorial intent' here, my instinct is to say that Moody's depiction there probably had far more to do with how JKR wanted to influence the reader to think about Crouch Jr. than about Moody himself. We know (or think we do, anyway) that Moody is One Tough Dude. So the fact that he's shown there as having been reduced to such a traumatized state implies some pretty dire things about how Crouch Jr. (whom we already know to be a sadist) might have been treating him over the course of the year. I think that the intended effect was probably less likely to be to make us either gain or lose sympathy for Moody as it was to rouse us to righteous indignation on his behalf, and thus to dispel any lingering little feelings of sympathy that Crouch's pathetic confession and horrifying end might have inspired. On the question of *why* Moody wouldn't be written in such a way as to strike readers as attractive, Eloise wrote: > Weeelll..... I suppose we can't have the whole book stuffed full > crush material. Perhaps he's simply another variation on the theme > of the unattractive good guy. The one that *no-one*, not even weird > Snape-fans, find sexy. ;-) Moody is a variant of a stock character: the Crazed Old Coot Mentor. JKR even has him swigging from that hip flask all the time. (The Crazed Old Coot Mentor is often also a drunk.) It's not a character type who is meant to be sexy. Crazed Old Coot Mentors are hardly ever sexy. That's really just not a part of their function. -- Elkins From porphyria at mindspring.com Fri May 31 00:17:34 2002 From: porphyria at mindspring.com (porphyria_ash) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 00:17:34 -0000 Subject: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes In-Reply-To: <018201c20827$b9cd9540$318901d5@oemcomputer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39215 Sigh; I've been holding back on contributing to this thread for fear of letting you all know far too much information than you want to hear about my personal proclivities, but a few of you have brought up some things I thought I'd just second and add to. Irene said: <<< I was thinking and thinking and soul-searching and the conclusion is - no, it's not hurt-comfort or angst that attracts me to Snape. I find him the most attractive when he is on top of the things - like blasting Lockhart or for once really scaring Harry with veritaserum threat. >>> I too can date my crush on Snape to the dueling scene in CoS, which indeed is the opposite of a hurt-comfort thing. I got really *emotional* about cheering him on there. Now, I realize that Lockhart is supposed to be a caricature, a burlesque, a one-joke character, but I happen to know someone in real life who is sufficiently like him for me to make the connection. And without getting into the gory details, this guy was a complete jerk to me, pretending to be my friend while betraying my secrets, telling degrading lies about me behind my back, that sort of thing. A deceitful charmer. So I was already pretty enraged about Lockhart long before the dueling scene. And then with the image of Snape's murderous glare and summary Expellarmus, my heart was taken. However, Irene also said: <<< The scene with the most hurt-comfort potential, the ending of PoA, does not fill me with desire to give him hug and make it all better, nope. The only desire I have at this particular moment is to be as far away from him as possible. :-) >>> Well, I agree that he needs to be quarantined for a while after this episode, but I think the killer hurt-comfort scene is the staircase one in GoF. And I *do* go all gooey at the thought of someone nobly suffering, so this particular scene just grinds in the crush that much deeper, which is why I think it's as tenacious as it is for me. Upon rereading, I find the Fluffy-bite scene and the infirmary scene in PoA to have the same effect, but those both benefit from hindsight. Ana, in reply to Elkins remark that JRK depicted Ron's suffering as unerotic said: <<< Well, IMO, Rowling is trying to do it to Snape, too, and it doesn't work. When he is embarassed, he turns "a horrible brick-red color". When he is stressed, the spit flies out of his mouth. When he is frustrated, he becomes "twice as ugly as a gargoyle". He "shrieks" and "howls". I don't even mention the infamous greasy hair/yellow fingers/uneven teeth. And do readers find all this deterrent? *g* I always thought something went awry with Snape's characterization. >>> Ha! See I have my own theory, which is basically that JKR is more hot for Snape than she wants to admit, but that might be a rather idiosyncratic interpretation. :-) My evidence for this is exactly what you specify here: Snape is depicted, especially in anger or extreme emotion, so much more *viscerally* than most of the other characters. While consciously we ought to regard Snape's profusion of blood, spit and sebum as disgusting, there really is something sneakily erotic about it, since these are inherently private as well as tactile bodily fluids. For a character who is so deliberately enigmatic and guards his privacy so fiercely, his body is strangely porous, with stuff that's supposed to remain inside leaking outside, or as with the blushing and vein throbbing, making an unwelcome appearance, whenever he's in a vulnerable situation. [The Dark Mark is another example of an inner secret physically emerging and betraying his past weakness.] Even his greasiness connotes vulnerability (IMO), the idea of someone too profoundly pessimistic to even see the value of sprucing himself up past what's minimally necessary. For me these things pique my own tendency to go for the hurt-comfort scenario, as well as lending his depiction a note of unexpected intimacy. Yes, something here is indeed awry. Individual mileage may vary. And I happen to like gargoyles: they're ugly because they scare the demons away. I happen to like hooked noses too. :~) OK, lets move on to Lupin, Marina said: <<< I'm *extremely* Bent, see, and the problem with Lupin for me is that he handles his suffering too well. <...> Lupin goes along through life, being kind to everyone who needs his kindness and forgiving to everyone who needs his forgiveness, giving out chocolate at the appropriate moments. I admire the heck out of him, but he's just too darn *sane* for me to crush on, Edge or no Edge. >>> I don't think he handles it that well. He's passive-aggressive (see Pippin's brilliant post # 34420); he takes weird chances with his lycanthropy, he keeps secrets he shouldn't keep, he's emotionally withdrawn, he's guilt ridden and it affects his judgment (I go on about this in post # 34588). And he's not too nice or forgiving when it comes to humiliating Snape when he gets the chance or offering to put Peter out of his misery without judge or jury. And Lupin's the *warm and fuzzy one.* But I suppose this all comes under the rubric of Edge. It's good enough for me, combined with the sickliness, exhaustion and premature grey. Definite crush material. :-) ExtraBent!Porphyria From ronale7 at yahoo.com Thu May 30 23:20:23 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (Ronale Stevens) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 16:20:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Names In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020530232023.44408.qmail@web20803.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39216 Mercia wrote: >> So anyone ever thought if 'Potter' could have some > importance? Potters shape things don't they. (Shape > shifter anyone > They mould and create from clay. The potter at work > is even a > biblical image of God creating humanity, though that > is probably > OTT. I'm not sure that I can really come up with any > earth > shattering significance for Harry's surname but > given JKR's previous > form it does strike me as possible that there is > some importance in > Harry being a Potter; indeed the last of the Potters > apparantly. At > any rate it seems more than a name picked at random > from the phone > book. > > Any thoughts? Our minds are on the same track: I think I answered your question before you wrote it. In part of message 39007 you'll find: The theme of the books is the conflict between good and evil. That conflict is present in Harry's name. Harry is also a name for the devil (Old Harry.) And Potter is often a title given to the Creator. Thus the name of the protagonist alludes to good and evil coexisting in one person. --Ronale7 __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Thu May 30 23:35:43 2002 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (elvishooked) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 23:35:43 -0000 Subject: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes + Im new here... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39217 > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: >>>>...making it far more likely that the same person might fancy both Snape and Lupin or both Sirius and Lupin than both Snape and Sirius.<<<<< > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "marinafrants" wrote: >>>>...Which goes a long way toward explaining why I crush on both Snape and Sirius, but not on Lupin. the problem with Lupin for me is that he handles his suffering too well. I mean, Snape's gone all bitter and twisted, stewing alone in his dungeon over wrongs done to him years ago. Sirius is oh-so-damaged and post-traumatic, eyes going all haunted whenever somebody says "Azkaban." But Lupin? Lupin goes along through life, being kind to everyone who needs his kindness and forgiving to everyone who needs his forgiveness, giving out chocolate at the appropriate moments. I admire the heck out of him, but he's just too darn *sane* for me to crush on, Edge or no Edge.<<<<< Marina I totally agree with you. Now first of all - it is so pathetic to have a crush on a fictional figure (well, it IS?) - but Im all with you regarding Snape and Sirius. They're both too hot to NOT be invited into my silly daydreams. And of course - now that we've seen Rickman in the part of Snape the crush only gets deeper, doesnt it? Awwwwwww. Looking so much forward to see who will get the part of Sirius. Hope for someone to do him justice the way Rickman totally blew my mind when I first watched him as Snape in the first movie. Anyway - Im new here. Im female (obviously), 40 yrs and danish. Happy to meet ya' all. Inge "Go on Rickman, bewitch my mind Ensnare my senses? - you already did!" From blpurdom at yahoo.com Fri May 31 01:54:18 2002 From: blpurdom at yahoo.com (blpurdom) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 01:54:18 -0000 Subject: Slave dialect comparison/ Re: Official Philip Nel Question #9: House Elves In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39218 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ladjables" wrote: > Now Dobby and Winky in GoF: > > "You is not insulting my master, miss! You is not insulting Mr. > Crouch! Mr. Crouch is a good wizard, miss!" > > "He said we is free to call him a- a barmy old codger if we likes, > sir!" (GoF, p. 380, US Edition) > > "They isn't my masters anymore, Winky!" > "Oh, you is a bad elf, Dobby!" > "...oh what is they saying if they knew Winky was freed?" > "You is seeing my master? You is seeing him here at Hogwarts?" > (p. 381) > > "You is killed him! You is killed him! You is killed master's son!" > (p. 683) > > "You isn't ought to tell them, we is getting in trouble...." (p. 685) > > "Master Barty, Master Barty, what is you saying?" (p. 690) > > > Read aloud, they are quite similar. Actually, what I noticed about Dobby's dialect is that is changes when he moves to Hogwarts. Before that, he mostly speaks perfectly grammatical English. What he actually does before GoF (if there are exceptions I haven't found them--which isn't to say they don't exist) is he speaks of himself in the third person. He says things like "Dobby is afraid that if Harry Potter returns to Hogwarts...." (or something to that effect) If it weren't for the fact that Dobby is the one saying this, we would find nothing wrong with the grammar in this sentence (not an exact quote, but very close). Most people do not refer to themselves in the third person (perhaps Dobby should be the official mascot of Theory Bay? ). Why does JKR have Dobby change his speech when it was slightly irregular but otherwise correct? I have no idea. It seems to me that the above quotes are mostly from Winky (only #2 and #3 are Dobby). Perhaps she's a bad influence on Dobby. (And she's the one who thinks Dobby's the bad influence!) However--I still think it's going a bit far to characterize even Winky's speech as 'black.' Black American English is a recognized dialect among linguistics experts, and it has firm rules of usage that are more complex than simply failing to conjugate the verb 'to be' (Winky uses 'is' to accompany all nouns and pronouns.) She never says 'I been,' 'I done been,' or any other phrases that have specific meanings and appropriate times for use. I think JKR was simply attempting to simplify Winky's speech by reducing her one version of the most basic verb. This is definitely not a direct lift of a dialect. --Barb http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HP_Psych http://www.schnoogle.com/authorLinks/Barb Chapter 4 of The Triangle Prophecy is up! (and remember--Sandy's back!) From Ahketsi at aol.com Fri May 31 02:22:03 2002 From: Ahketsi at aol.com (Ahketsi at aol.com) Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 22:22:03 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Remus isn't THAT nice Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39219 Pip said: > I see Remus as someone who is in deep denial about how dangerous he > really is as a werewolf. That's why he allows himself to play around > with the Maurauders whilst a werewolf, that's why he accepts a job in > a school full of children who don't know how to defend themselves > against a werewolf, that's why he forgets to take his potion. > You know, Remus is not safe at Hogwarts, then he is not safe anywhere. How is taking a job at the school much more dangerous than any other place? The other teachers are around to make sure that he doesn't harm anyone, we all know that the staff had been aware of what Lupin is from the beginning. Lupin realizes how dangerous he is, but he believed himself to be responsible enough not to let any accidents happen. The days with the Marauders were a long time ago, but kid do do stupid dangerous things, and regret them later, and Lupin was having a harder life than most other kids. The poor man hasn't been able to find work anywhere and now that he finally got a job, he has to feel guilty he ever accepted it! Isn't that sad? Pip said: "If Remus truly believed that he was a monstrous killer while werewolf, then the FIRST thing he would have done on seeing Peter Petigrew's name on the map would have been to think 'Arggh! It's a full moon', run like heck to Snape's office and ask 'is that potion ready?' and THEN go after Peter. Instead he forgets, transforms, nearly kills the Trio, lets Peter escape and ruins Sirius's chance of freedom. (Admittedly remembering the potion would have ruined the plot, but still...)" I think that what happened that night was a complete accident. I do not think Lupin is in denial about how dangerous he is, and I think he really hates himself for what he almost did. In fact, I think all this ganging up on Remus is completely idiotic. Some of you act like you're ready to convict him of being a complete loser. It's all theorizing, and I believe that time will show what an excellent person Lupin is, but we'll just have to wait and see. -Ahketsi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From jferer at yahoo.com Fri May 31 03:50:22 2002 From: jferer at yahoo.com (jferer) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 03:50:22 -0000 Subject: Muggle Clothing [Was Newbie Intro and Question] In-Reply-To: <20020530162838.44892.qmail@web14907.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39220 Kate:" It does make me wonder, though. About the use in the film of Muggle clothing but the apparent rarity of this as implied by GoF and the infamous clothing scenes . . . How are these to be reconsiled?" Actually, I don't think Muggle clothing is that rare in the wizarding world.. it just depends who you're with. I'm sure Muggle-borns keep the clothing habits they grew up with, mostly. In other books Harry is mentioned wearing a t-shirt under his Quidditch robes, and most of the students make it through King's Cross to get to Platform 9 3/4. It kind of illustrates divisions in the wizarding world. Harry and Hermione wear Muggle clothing in the Muggle world, while the Weasleys and other long-time purebloods don't wear the same clothing and can't even use a telephone. It has to cause tensions sometimes. From kovarsmistress at yahoo.com Fri May 31 01:55:48 2002 From: kovarsmistress at yahoo.com (fairladyofthedungeon) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 01:55:48 -0000 Subject: reader crushes + Im new here, the trinity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39221 > > --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "ssk7882" wrote: > >>>>...making it far more likely that the same person might fancy > both Snape and Lupin or both Sirius and Lupin than both Snape and > Sirius.<<<<< I'm new too, thirty and a little Narcissa. As for reader crushes: being a simple person I first fell for Sirius, the fact that he is both gorgeous & guiltridden, and wild, expecially wild. In PoA, I really hated Snape, and in GoF, I thought he was losing it, going hysterical in his gray nightie. My best friend was all for Snape-not-Sirius, and when she showed me what there was to be loved in Snape, I fell hard again (wrote a 60 page ff about him). Of course it's pathetic to be in love with a figment of someone else's imagination, but it's great fun, so why don't we? I agree that Rowling must love Snape, otherwise she would not be so adamant in portraying him as disgusting (which is the students' - Harry & co - POV I believe) and at the same time dark, - the black eyes for heaven's sake! brooding, tall, and last but not least, noble when push comes to shove. We should not forget, what looks ugly to a teenager, might look yum to a grown woman. There was a post about the body fluids emanating, that was hilarious (there is someone in New Zealand who did a PhD on that, the fact that people are discriminated against when they are not in control, when they leak.) Well, poor Snape surely is the type. Writing ff all the time lead me to think about Remus, who is indeed not as nice and innocent as many readers believe he is. I guess I was as shocked as many people when it was Harry, not Remus that stopped Sirius from killing that rat; not only did he not stop Sirius, he would have done it himself. It was clear from the start that he is a werewolf (I can't believe some readers missed that, 'Lupin' & 'Remus', come on? Still wondering what the J stands for though) I do think he's a wonderful man, but I also believe that he is capable of extreme violence, when he deems necessary. And that is how I ended up with being in love with all three of them. Well, variations in daydreaming, to spice up boring meetings etc, there is nothing quite like it. Camilla Bloom From medeia_no at yahoo.no Fri May 31 10:25:04 2002 From: medeia_no at yahoo.no (medeia_no) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:25:04 -0000 Subject: puzzlers, and possible sollutions to puzzles Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39222 I have a few puzzlers I'd like your opinions on. Feel free to point me to other threads if they have been debated before. Puzzle #1: Why isn't Hermione in Ravenclaw? According to the sorting hat, Gryffindor is for the bold and brave, while Ravenclaw is for the smart and clever. Now while Hermione always come through in the end, I would not call her particularly brave. Her inteligence however is out of this world. Isn't she a clear candidate for Ravenclaw rather than Gryffindor? Puzzle #2: Was James Potter an orphan? Why have we not heard anything about James Potter's family? Does this mean he doesn't have any living relatives at all? If so, what happened to them? My theory is that James was brought up in a Muggle orphanage, like Tom Riddle. Does anyone else have any opions or theories on this one? Puzzle #3: Butterbeer, why couldn't Ron and Hermione bring back a bottle for Harry? There is a simple sollution to this one. At Rosmerta's they serve butterbeer in tankards, so R and H couldn't bring it back. That doesn't mean it's not sold in bottles in a normal shop. Remember, this was R and H first ever visit to Hogsmeade, while the Weasly twins probably know the village inside out. Puzzle #4: The Shrieking Shak Why didn't the Weasly twins ever investigate the Shrieking Shak? We know they have been caught in the forbidden forrest, and that they just love exploring out of bonds places. Wouldn't something like the most haunted house in Britain serve as a virtual magnet on Fred and George? Puzzle #5: Who is head of Ravenclaw? Gryffindor = McGonagall Slytherin = Snape Hufflepuff = Sprout Ravenclaw = ? That's all for now. I'll post more puzzles later. Varana From hp_lexicon at yahoo.com Fri May 31 12:54:19 2002 From: hp_lexicon at yahoo.com (hp_lexicon) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:54:19 -0000 Subject: puzzlers, and possible sollutions to puzzles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39223 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "medeia_no" wrote: > I have a few puzzlers I'd like your opinions on. Feel free to point > me to other threads if they have been debated before. > > Puzzle #1: Why isn't Hermione in Ravenclaw? > > According to the sorting hat, Gryffindor is for the bold and brave, > while Ravenclaw is for the smart and clever. Now while Hermione > always come through in the end, I would not call her particularly > brave. Her inteligence however is out of this world. Isn't she a > clear candidate for Ravenclaw rather than Gryffindor? Many students would qualify for more than one house. Harry qualifies for all four (read the Sorting Hat's musings about him as it chooses- -all house qualities are referred to). WHat makes a person great isn't always what strikes you about them on first glance. As Hermione herself states toward the end of SS: "Me!" said Hermione. "Books! And cleverness! There are more important things -- friendship and bravery and -- oh Harry -- be careful!" > > Puzzle #4: The Shrieking Shak > > Why didn't the Weasly twins ever investigate the Shrieking Shak? We > know they have been caught in the forbidden forrest, and that they > just love exploring out of bonds places. Wouldn't something like the > most haunted house in Britain serve as a virtual magnet on Fred and > George? According to the book, they did. This is from PA14: "Even the Hogwarts ghosts avoid it," said Ron as they leaned on the fence, looking up at it. "I asked Nearly Headless Nick...he says he's heard a very rough crowd lives here. No one can get in. Fred and George tried, obviously, but all the entrances are sealed shut...." > > > Puzzle #5: Who is head of Ravenclaw? Flitwick. CTL. (Check The Lexicon) Steve Vander Ark The Harry Potter Lexicon http://www.i2k.com/~svderark/lexicon From jillyharris at triton.net Fri May 31 13:36:53 2002 From: jillyharris at triton.net (Jilly Harris) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 09:36:53 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] puzzlers, and possible sollutions to puzzles References: Message-ID: <3CF77C74.7977D017@triton.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39224 medeia_no wrote: > Puzzle #5: Who is head of Ravenclaw? > > Gryffindor = McGonagall > Slytherin = Snape > Hufflepuff = Sprout > Ravenclaw = ? I believe that Professor Flitwick is the head of Ravenclaw. Jilly From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri May 31 13:13:40 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 13:13:40 -0000 Subject: House characteristics (was puzzlers, and possible sollutions to puzzles) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39225 The Great Lexicographer wrote: > Harry qualifies > for all four (read the Sorting Hat's musings about him as it chooses- > -all house qualities are referred to). WHat makes a person great > isn't always what strikes you about them on first glance. As > Hermione herself states toward the end of SS: > "Me!" said Hermione. "Books! And cleverness! There > are more important things -- friendship and bravery > and -- oh Harry -- be careful!" > I like it!: "Me!" said Hermione. "Books! And Ravenclaw! There are more important things -- Hufflepuff and Gryffindor and -- oh Harry -- Slytherin!" Any more quotes where all four characteristics come up? David From absinthe at mad.scientist.com Fri May 31 15:24:51 2002 From: absinthe at mad.scientist.com (milztoday) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 15:24:51 -0000 Subject: What constitutes HP cannon? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39226 Hi everyone. I haven't posted in the group for a long, long time. Anyhow, way back when the group membership hovered in the triple digits, we were hashing out what constituted HP cannon. IIRC, we agreed that the novels by Rowling and the Rowling interviews are cannon. I don't think we ever decided if the movie was "cannon" because, although it had Rowling's approval, the movie might take certain creative liberties. So what is the official HP for GrownUps policy statement regarding cannon? Milz From huntleyl at mssm.org Fri May 31 15:31:55 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:31:55 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes References: Message-ID: <004201c208b8$4cbaa420$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 39227 Mmm..I've been too busy to post much (read: at all) on this hurt-comfort thread before now, so excuse me while I roll up my jeans and wade in. Elkins: >A few more thoughts on "hurt-comfort," the dynamic whereby >female readers tend to become erotically interested in male >characters who suffer, provided that this suffering is depicted >in certain specific ways. Mm..I haven't got a nurturing or maternal bone in my body, but I definitely get drawn into the Hurt-Comfort thing at the drop of a hat. I suspect that the "specific ways" you mention differ from person to person however. I can't stand Snape -- and yet, characters like Sirius and Remus make me want to curl up for a good cuddle... Not that I ever thought about them in that way before I joined HPFGU (they're a little old for me...not to imply that they ARE old..just too old for me ^_~), but I definitely noticed their appeal when it was pointed out to me. I get the same feeling with Harry as well..although he's sort of -- too young. I must confess..my fuzzy feels for Harry are certainly muddled by the fact that in PS/SS he's *11* (I refuse to crush on an eleven year old, goshdarnit)...and by GoF he's only 14..which isn't much better...at all. Irene asked: > If "Hurt-Comfort" is all it takes, how would you explain then the > almost perfect dichotomy of Sirius and Snape fan clubs? I know 1 > (one) person who likes them both, for the rest they appear quite > incompatible. Oh...someone said something similar to this about a month (?) ago...and the list positively exploded with people who felt *very* differently..In any case, I think most of the aggression that is sometimes seen between Snape and Sirius fans is due to the fact that Snape and Sirius are quite aggressive towards *each other*...They feel obligated to be "loyal" to one or the other. Elkins: >As well as of explaining why poor hurt little woobie >Neville doesn't really qualify for membership in the Hurt-Comfort >club. Great job!) I just had to comment: great use of the word "woobie". Elkins: >Me, I like both of them myself, but I don't actually *fancy* either >one of them. In fact, I was genuinely surprised when I first learned >that so many people were drooling over Sirius and Snape. It honestly >hadn't even occurred to me to view anyone but Lupin as a crush >object. Ahh..and see, I didn't view any of them as crush objects...although, as I stated before, I definitely *understand* the attraction to Sirius and Lupin...and I guess I accept the attraction to Snape..just barely. >Then, I don't find any of the kids erotically interesting either. I >think that I can see where the Draco drooling (or the Harry drooling, >for that matter) comes from, but it doesn't really have much effect >on me. This is probably due to the age difference that Eloise >cited. I've got two decades on Harry and his peers, and I tend to >think of them as, well, as little kids. Well, I've only got less than an decade (at best) on them..and I still feel that way..Esp. the way JKR tends to portray the kids as a little younger/innocent than their actual years as well. I mean, when is Harry scheduled to hit puberty, anyway? >But once again, this is far >from universal. Plenty of adult readers manage to get crushy about >them anyway -- or about their own mental projections of the sorts of >adults that they are likely to become. Yeah...or the sort of adults they become in certain wondrous fanfiction *coughs*.... >Hey, so what about Ron, huh? What's wrong with Ron? *He* suffers, >doesn't he? But he can be such an arrogant bastard...and he's always making fun of/putting other people down (esp. Hermione..but plenty of others as well)...I realize this may be his angsty way of dealing with his heaping piles of pain and hurt, but... Pippin: > I can't help but feel, you know, that Ron appeals to a more mature > taste (assuming he grows out of the jealousy thing), as he's a > character that can give comfort as well as receive it. Mature taste? Alright...I'll admit that, being a teenager, I probably am not the best authority on what is "mature", but well..jeez. Ron seems very unhealthy and immature right now when it comes to *coughs* matters of the heart... And I very rarely see him giving comfort. His idea of comforting/defending/supporting someone is to *fight* for them...whereas Harry, Hermione, and Hagrid seem to have the real grasp on how to actually *help* a person in pain...for example..when Hermione is attacked/hurt by various and sundry people (Malfoy), Harry tends to be the one that goes to her and offers emotional support, while Ron loses his temper and confronts Malfoy -- while this is a reasonable reaction, it doesn't help Hermione very much. Harry is also allot more sensitive to people's feelings....Ron is definitely lacking in this department. He constantly berates Hermione on a low level -- and even if she doesn't mention it -- that kind of never-ending stream gets you down after awhile -- the little things just start to build, you know? Also...Ron suggesting that Harry throw Riddle's diary through MM's nose...Harry would never think of that -- he might not be morally outraged by the suggestion...but it'd never *occur* to him to do something of that manner... And the whole thing about the Yule Ball..personally, I know he's only such a jerk because he's insecure...but liking someone who is nasty to other people because of personal insecurities doesn't seem to mature to me. And don't even get me started about how much more comforting/sensitive/helpful Hermione is to people who are emotionally upset. Sure, she has her moments, but on the whole she's got a much better track record than Ron.. Additionally, I'd like to say what I always try to make clear when I'm "complaining" about Ron -- I wouldn't want him any other way. laura -- who is bent to the point of being quite twisted [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From siskiou at earthlink.net Fri May 31 16:42:31 2002 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 09:42:31 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes In-Reply-To: <004201c208b8$4cbaa420$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> References: <004201c208b8$4cbaa420$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: <126460170988.20020531094231@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 39228 Hi, Friday, May 31, 2002, 8:31:55 AM, Laura wrote: > Mature taste? Alright...I'll admit that, being a teenager, I probably > am not the best authority on what is "mature", but well..jeez. Ron > seems very unhealthy and immature right now when it comes to *coughs* > matters of the heart... > And I very rarely see him giving comfort. His idea of > comforting/defending/supporting someone is to *fight* for them... I certainly count myself among the mature . And maybe I like Ron so much, because he seems the most *real* of the main characters. Let's face it, there aren't very many people out there who are "mature" and helpful and sensitive at HRH's age. Harry is almost too good to be true for me, and Hermione might be sensible, but she has some characteristics that grate on me much more than Ron's shortcomings. I liked Ron best from the moment I started reading the books, even with all the "warts". And since joining the lists, I like him even more, since I usually pull for the underdog, and there are just so many people who don't like Ron (or maybe it just seems that way to me) . And no, I definitely don't have a crush on Ron ;) My daughter is 10 and looking at the boys in her class, Ron, Harry and Hermione seem a lot more mature than the real kids do. -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From Elvishooked at hotmail.com Fri May 31 14:23:01 2002 From: Elvishooked at hotmail.com (elvishooked) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 14:23:01 -0000 Subject: James - an orphan? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39229 I have my own little theory about James - and don't kill me now - but I think that James is actually the son of Voldemort... leading Voldemort to be Harry's grandfather! So many things point in that direction... In a way I HOPE Im wrong on this one because that would ruin one of the "great surprises" that Rowling must hold back. Any thoughts? Inge Go on, Rickman - bewitch my mind - Ensnaring my senses? You already did! From ronale7 at yahoo.com Fri May 31 15:33:33 2002 From: ronale7 at yahoo.com (Ronale Stevens) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 08:33:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [HPforGrownups] puzzlers, and possible sollutions to puzzles In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20020531153333.78793.qmail@web20804.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39230 Varana wrote: > Puzzle #2: Was James Potter an orphan? > > Why have we not heard anything about James Potter's > family? Does this > mean he doesn't have any living relatives at all? If > so, what > happened to them? > > My theory is that James was brought up in a Muggle > orphanage, like > Tom Riddle. Does anyone else have any opions or > theories on this one? >> > Varana I have no guesses where James was raised, but an orphanange is possible. You see, I believe James is Tom Riddle's son. That would make Riddle Harry's grandfather. Please see my message 38784 on the 'fatal child" theory. --Ronale Stevens __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com From huntleyl at mssm.org Fri May 31 15:53:52 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 11:53:52 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes References: <004201c208b8$4cbaa420$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> <126460170988.20020531094231@earthlink.net> Message-ID: <006a01c208bb$5d004300$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 39231 Susanne: >And maybe I like Ron so much, because he seems the most >*real* of the main characters. >Let's face it, there aren't very many people out there who >are "mature" and helpful and sensitive at HRH's age. Definitely true...I mean, esp. Harry..how perfect is that kid? Esp. with his upbringing..he should be awful..but instead he's kind and sensitive and brave...it just doesn't make sense. >Harry is almost too good to be true for me, and Hermione >might be sensible, but she has some characteristics that >grate on me much more than Ron's shortcomings. I suppose it all depends on your tastes..I always liked Hermione better..but I like Ron too..*shrugs* It probably has something to do with whom you identify with more... >I liked Ron best from the moment I started reading the books, even with all the "warts". >And since joining the lists, I like him even more, since I >usually pull for the underdog, and there are just so many >people who don't like Ron (or maybe it just seems that way >to me) . Well..I don't if it's just you or just me...I definitely perceive there to be many more Hermione-haters than Ron-haters...*tilts head* maybe we need an objective opinion? I don't know..it seems like every time I turn around someone is attacking Hermione..or shout from the rooftops about how Ron is so mature and sensitive and understanding.. Which he's not. He's allot of (good) things..but sensitive and understanding are not any of them, IMO. >My daughter is 10 and looking at the boys in her class, Ron, >Harry and Hermione seem a lot more mature than the real kids >do. I agree pretty much completely here..except to add that in addition to being more "mature" in some ways..they seem younger in other ways (as I mentioned in my last post)...more innocent, you know? laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Fri May 31 17:00:22 2002 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 17:00:22 -0000 Subject: James - an orphan? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39232 My main problem with the "James as an orphan" theory is, where did the Potter money come from, then. James and Lily left Harry with a whole vault full of Galleons and Sickles and Knuts. They couldn't have come from Muggle-born, middle-class Lily, so it must've been James' money. Neither he nor Lily had had time to earn a fortune from scratch in the few years between their leaving Hogwarts and their being killed. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From huntleyl at mssm.org Fri May 31 16:02:58 2002 From: huntleyl at mssm.org (Laura Ingalls Huntley) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:02:58 -0400 Subject: [HPforGrownups] puzzlers, and possible sollutions to puzzles References: <20020531153333.78793.qmail@web20804.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <007301c208bc$a241f2a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> No: HPFGUIDX 39233 Stevens: >I have no guesses where James was raised, but an >orphanage is possible. You see, I believe James is >Tom Riddle's son. That would make Riddle Harry's >grandfather. Please see my message 38784 on the >'fatal child" theory. and Inge: >I have my own little theory about James - and don't kill me now - but >I think that James is actually the son of Voldemort... leading >Voldemort to be Harry's grandfather! >So many things point in that direction... >In a way I HOPE Im wrong on this one because that would ruin one of >the "great surprises" that Rowling must hold back. Wow, was that a coordinated assault?? ^_^...I've had ideas that tended towards these theories in the past...BUT...in an interview JKR did say: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Q: Is Voldemort some sort of relative of Harry's? Possibly his mother's brother? JKR: I'm laughing...that would be a bit Star Wars, wouldn't it? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Which implies no..but it could mean that she' s trying to throw us off the trail..or it could mean..well.. It could mean anything actually...make of it what you will. laura [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From j-lipton at nwu.edu Fri May 31 17:24:46 2002 From: j-lipton at nwu.edu (Jamie Lipton) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 12:24:46 -0500 Subject: James - an orphan? Message-ID: <00ee01c208c8$0f9e28e0$03fea8c0@death-computer> No: HPFGUIDX 39234 Assuming that James is not the son of Voldemort, then I think it's safe to say that his parents died before he did. Otherwise, Harry would have moved in with them instead of the Dursleys. And even though you could argue that Dumbledore left Harry with the Dursleys to hide him from the wizarding world (which the Potters would have been a part of, since we have no evidence that James was muggle-born), you'd think someone would have introduced Harry to his grandparents by now. It's mentioned that Aunt Petunia and Dudley are Harry's only remaining blood relatives. James was in his early twenties when he died (someone please refresh me on why this is canon) so it is possible that his parents died after he moved out of their house. I tend to think that James' parents died after his graduation from Hogwarts but before Harry was born - probably early victims of Voldemort. - Jamie From aiz24 at hotmail.com Fri May 31 18:16:33 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 14:16:33 -0400 Subject: Canon, Ron's Comfort, Harry's Edge, James's Age Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39235 Milz asked: >So what is the official HP for GrownUps policy statement regarding cannon? I don't actually know, but I'm so psyched to have you back that I had to make something up . Welcome home! Let's see. The Lexicon admits movie references, I believe on the logic that JKR had a lot of input into the minutiae of the movie. OTOH, movie discussion is prohibited here (though occasional references to The-Celluloid-That-Must-Not-Be-Named will usually squeak through) and quoting as canonical fact something that occurred in TCTMNBN but not the book, e.g. Harry wreaking havoc in Ollivander's, will usually get one a curt "that didn't happen in the book." In practice, in other words, there is a presumption that the books win out over the movie for canon purity. The CTMNBN has a bit more pull vis-a-vis interviews; e.g. some think that JKR's statement in an interview that James was a Chaser is outweighed by the movie's claim that he was a Seeker, reasoning that JKR might have spoken off the top of her head for an online chat but wouldn't have approved that cup if James weren't Seeker. Canon has become complicated. Books, interviews, movies--all have some canonical status, but some canon is more equal than others. Laura wrote re: Ron: >And I very rarely see him giving comfort. His idea of > >comforting/defending/supporting someone is to *fight* for them Very true. It *is* comforting, though, in an adolescent-boy kind of way. If I were Neville, I'd find it very heartwarming that Ron shuts up a suit of armor that's laughing at me (it makes me feel very warmly towards Ron just reading it). It isn't a very touchy-feely way of showing sympathy, but it has feeling behind it. It's a subtlety about JKR's characterization of Ron that I like. I would have said that Ron doesn't stimulate the Hurt/Comfort Response, except that it seems I feel driven to say something nice about him whenever he's criticized on the list. Hmm. and re: Harry: >Harry..how perfect is that kid? Ah, I dunno. He *is* kind and sensitive and brave, but he also has Edge. He's a smartassed little thing even at his most downtrodden (see PS/SS pre-Hagrid). He has moods. He procrastinates dangerously (just when WAS he planning to order a new broom? He gets his Firebolt back two days before the Ravenclaw match). He isn't good at everything he tries his hand at. And then there's his inveterate lying and rulebreaking, sometimes in a good cause, sometimes in the cause of More Fun for Harry or Getting Harry Out of Trouble. JKR has said in some interview or other (if I may reference quasi-canon ) that he isn't perfect, and I think he'd be hard to take if he were. Jamie wrote: >James was in his early twenties when he died (someone please refresh >me on >why this is canon) Dear me, we must once again rely on interviews. In 2000 JKR was asked how old Snape was, and she said "35 or 36." We know James and Snape were close contemporaries (not necessarily the same year, depending on how you read the "we" in Lupin's "we were the same year"--does it mean Lupin and Snape, or Lupin and Snape and James and Sirius and Peter?). If they were the same year, and JKR meant "35 or 36 as of GoF," then James was 21 or 22 when Harry was born. Amy Z _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp. From absinthe at mad.scientist.com Fri May 31 18:44:36 2002 From: absinthe at mad.scientist.com (milztoday) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 18:44:36 -0000 Subject: Canon, Ron's Comfort, Harry's Edge, James's Age In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39236 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "Amy Z" wrote: > Milz asked: > > >So what is the official HP for GrownUps policy statement regarding cannon? > > I don't actually know, but I'm so psyched to have you back that I had to > make something up . Welcome home! > > Let's see. The Lexicon admits movie references, I believe on the logic that > JKR had a lot of input into the minutiae of the movie. > > OTOH, movie discussion is prohibited here (though occasional references to > The-Celluloid-That-Must-Not-Be-Named will usually squeak through) and > quoting as canonical fact something that occurred in TCTMNBN but not the > book, e.g. Harry wreaking havoc in Ollivander's, will usually get one a curt > "that didn't happen in the book." In practice, in other words, there is a > presumption that the books win out over the movie for canon purity. > > The CTMNBN has a bit more pull vis-a-vis interviews; e.g. some think that > JKR's statement in an interview that James was a Chaser is outweighed by the > movie's claim that he was a Seeker, reasoning that JKR might have spoken off > the top of her head for an online chat but wouldn't have approved that cup > if James weren't Seeker. Canon has become complicated. Books, interviews, > movies--all have some canonical status, but some canon is more equal than > others. > Thanks for the welcome back:-) So the cannon issue is still rather muddy. I only brought it up because I finally saw the movie (in DVD form: couldn't find a nephew or neice willing to accompany me to the theaters--lol) this week and noticed some details that deviated from the books and some details that were never addressed in the books to date, specifically a clue to James' age (but I digress.) I completely agree if the movie contradicts the books, then the books win out cannonically, since the books are more indicative of Rowlings interpretation than the movie(s). Ditto for interviews versus books. Oh well, I guess we'll have to wait for the new books to come out (whenever that will be) to get definitive answers....or more confusion. Milz From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri May 31 18:43:00 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 18:43:00 -0000 Subject: James - an orphan? (short) In-Reply-To: <00ee01c208c8$0f9e28e0$03fea8c0@death-computer> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39237 I tend to think that James' parents died after his > graduation from Hogwarts but before Harry was born - probably early victims of Voldemort. That seems probable. In GoF (UK hardback) p. 152 Fudge says "Not many people are aware that the Potters knew you-know-who was after them." Since we know that Voldemort didn't seem too obsessed with killing Lily until she got between him and Harry, I've always assumed that Voldemort was after *all* the Potters. Especially since Harry now has no living relatives except the Dursleys. Pip From Chelsea2162 at aol.com Fri May 31 18:50:40 2002 From: Chelsea2162 at aol.com (Chelsea2162 at aol.com) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 14:50:40 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] puzzlers, and possible sollutions to puzzles Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39238 In the mirror of Erised, Harry sees several of his relatives, not just lily and james. he also sees an old man with his knobbly knees. I've always thought that those people were his grandparents and great-grandparents, and so on. It never occured to me that James could've been an orphan...and, when Harry saw his family, if V was his granddad, wouldn't he have appeared in the mirror? *Chelsea* From pennylin at swbell.net Fri May 31 18:53:31 2002 From: pennylin at swbell.net (Penny Linsenmayer) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 13:53:31 -0500 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes References: <004201c208b8$4cbaa420$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: <006c01c208d4$755ea0e0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> No: HPFGUIDX 39239 Hi -- Pippin: > I can't help but feel, you know, that Ron appeals to a more mature > taste (assuming he grows out of the jealousy thing), as he's a > character that can give comfort as well as receive it. I've been meaning to comment on this...but didn't know how (or whether I should) and Laura here has given me the perfect opportunity: Laura said: <<>>> Hmmm. Yes ...er...."mature taste"? I admit that my first reaction was :::snorts of derisive laughter:::: But, then again, I'm not the biggest Ron fan on the planet. But, seriously ... when does Ron show instances that he can *give* comfort? I've thought hard about this, and I can't really honestly come up with anything that falls into what I would subjectively rate as "giving comfort." We see him being comforted by Ginny after the Asking Fleur to the Ball debacle. We know Hermione encourages him not to take Malfoy seriously in a few instances, and I suppose that counts as receiving comfort to some extent. But, giving comfort? He says things like "You don't know you'll make a fool of yourself" when Harry is worried about taking flying lessons with the Slytherins in PS/SS. He offers to make tea for Hagrid when Hagrid is inconsolable. He seems worried about Harry's reaction to the dementors on the train. He's not a complete clod when it comes to perception & warmth toward his friends ... but I definitely can't think of instances where he shows aptitude for giving and receiving comfort in an emotionally stable manner at some point in the future. Sorry ....but I'm missing that I'm afraid. It's probably me just with my usual wary-if-not-outright-hostile-to-Ron attitude. Strangely enough, even with the deficiencies in his own emotional background and even with the Growing Up Weasley working in Ron's favor, I think at this point in the canon, Harry is head & shoulders above Ron in the department of being in touch with his feelings and being capable of having and responding to his own emotions as well as those of others. That might or might not continue. Ron could actually Grow Up. Stranger things have happened. Harry might respond to some crisis (say, oh the death of someone important to him in Book 5) by closing off emotionally. But, at the end of GoF, I'd say that Harry is in better shape overall on that front. Hermione, of course, is a girl ..... and while she has moments of insensitivity or obtuseness, she is general in touch with her emotions & completely capable of offering comfort and help to those in need (and is perceptive enough to recognize the need for it ... as in intuiting that Harry might not want to go to the Great Hall for breakfast the morning after the Goblet chose the champions and as in her observance of the effects of Moody's class on the Unforgivable Curses on Neville). Penny [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri May 31 19:02:25 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 19:02:25 -0000 Subject: Remus: Once more with feeling, I will try once again... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39240 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "jferer" wrote: > I have to say at the outset I didn't like your take on this. Without going into too many details, my 'take' on this is of someone who has personal experience of a 'Remus' - that is, an extremely nice, talented, person whose (treatable) illness can include violent episodes in which they try to kill or injure other people. If Remus fails to take his potion he becomes [his own words] 'a fully fledged monster'. >You seem > to expect Remus to operate under tremendous stress in a way that > people under stress just don't behave. Imagine the shock to find >out that Peter Pettigrew is *alive*! The danger the Trio was under! > His first thought was to get there as fast as possible. > And my point is that it shouldn't be his first thought. He's capable of *killing* people at the full moon. He's known this since he was a small child. The Trio are in as much danger from *him* as from Pettigrew. THAT should be his first thought. I think people's behaviour under stress is extremely revealing of their true selves - even if you don't agree, JKR often uses stress to reveal things about characters. Look at the way Hermoine consistently reverts back to Muggledom under stress. > How good was your judgement as a teenager? Mine left something to > be desired. Me likewise, I used to play on building sites [grin]; again it's a question of 'are the kinds of mistakes you make as a teenager indicative of the *kind* of mistakes you'll make as an adult'. If you don't think they are, then you still have to ask yourself *why* has JKR deliberately chosen to put the Marauders teenage antics in the book? Remus makes a succession of decisions as teenager and adult which all put other people under risk from his werewolfhood. > Remus had friends for the first time in his life, a force so > powerful for a lonely and despised boy it is irresistible. Which is why Dumbledore is forgiving. Do you think he didn't figure it out after That Event? He at least knew that James and Sirius knew Remus was a werewolf, and that they knew how to get into the tunnel. > Remus accepts the job as a teacher because he's good at it True. He's an excellent teacher. >and needs a job badly, Also true. And I sympathise with him, because it's obviously due to prejudice that he's unable to find a job he could do safely and well. I mean, not only is he safe 27 days out of 28, but you can look up the 28th day in an almanac! And then even if you don't trust him you could make sure he stays locked up, or do what Snape does and practically hold his nose and pour the potion down his throat. >and with the potion, which he takes faithfully See my post # 39167 - people keep saying this, and there's no evidence for it. Snape doesn't give Remus a chance to forget his potion. Even on the Night of the Rat he goes round to Remus's office with a gobletful. > until he's under enormous stress, he can perform his teaching > duties well and safely. > Be honest, after the events in PS/SS and CoS, do you think Dumbledore thought there would be any chance Harry's third year would be stress- free for the staff? He's trusting Remus to perform safely under stress. Remus lets him down. > You say "forget" like Remus was a homeless TB case who sells his > INH pills or an HIV patient who doesn't follow the regimen. I'm sorry you got that impression; I didn't intend it to be read that way. I used 'forget' simply because people in denial very often don't go as far as actively refusing to take their medication. They just 'forget'. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -Ahketsi writes: >You know, Remus is not safe at Hogwarts, then he is not safe >anywhere. How is taking a job at the school much more dangerous than >any other place? A school is full of children. By definition, children are less able to defend themselves from danger (and less able to recognise it) than adults. Part of learning to be an adult is to learn to judge danger/amount of risk appropriately; part of an adult's job is to try and make sure that children can do this with the least amount of risk (and yes, I accept fully that the process can't be risk-free). >The other teachers are around to make sure that he doesn't harm >anyone, we all know that the staff had been aware of what Lupin is >from the beginning. Harry at least is alone with Remus in his office just before full moon. Snape finds him there when he comes in with Remus's potion. Incidentally, Snape gives out his famous 'Werewolf' essay to Harry's class shortly after this event. I'm not trying to be nasty to poor Remus (who I like) when I say that if he can't be trusted to take his medication under stress then he is too dangerous to have teaching in a school; I'm stating what I believe, from experience, to be fact. This is why I think Snape acts correctly in forcing his resignation. If JKR had, for example, decided to have him tied up and unable to have access to his potion I would have been disgusted at Snape's behaviour. But she shows him free to take his potion, and choosing (by forgetting) not to. -Ahketsi writes: >I believe that time will show what an excellent person Lupin is, but we'll just >have to wait and see. Funnily enough, I believe exactly the same thing. And if at some point in Books 5, 6 or 7 he does remember his potion under stress, then I'd say 'yup, he's cured. Take him back as a teacher.' Pip (waving at Pippin, fellow 'Remus can be dangerous' fan) From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri May 31 20:15:13 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 20:15:13 -0000 Subject: Lupin Is Not An Airhead! (WAS Remus: Once more with feeling, ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39241 Pip wrote about our dear, self-effacing, delightful, prematurely- grey but-still-looking-young Lupin, who is so desperately in need of the love of a good woman: > I'm not trying to be nasty to poor Remus (who I like) when I say >that if he can't be trusted to take his medication under stress >then he is too dangerous to have teaching in a school; I'm stating >what I believe, from experience, to be fact. This is why I think >Snape acts correctly in forcing his resignation. > > If JKR had, for example, decided to have him tied up and unable to > have access to his potion I would have been disgusted at Snape's > behaviour. But she shows him free to take his potion, and choosing > (by forgetting) not to. What's this? Another spirited attack on Lupin premised on the idea that Lupin is forgetful and deserved to lose the only paid work he has been able to find? Based on the assumption that Remus, that Knucklehead, just forgot to take his potion that night? He's so darn forgetful that he is an out-and-out menace to the entire Hogwarts student body, so Snape's revealing Remus' secret was the best way to protect all of those helpless students? Well! I must draw a line in the sand on this one. Remus Lupin Is *Not* An Airhead! Where's the canon? Did you ask whether I have *canon*? You betcha! First of all, Remus never once tells us that he "forgot" his potion. The only one who says that Lupin forgot his potion is *Snape*, who says, "You forgot to take your potion tonight." Now, is there any good reason to believe Snape here? How would Snape know *why* Lupin didn't take his potion? Indeed, Snape hates Lupin, so Snape could be expected to describe Lupin's failure in the most insulting way possible. Snape is just assuming the worst about Lupin -- as usual. So what's the best theory to explain why Lupin failed to take his potion? For that, we have to turn to Mahoney's great Bewitching Hour theory (Message 32,725), from which I will boldly copy the following: Mahoney: > Do we have any concept at all as to what time it was when Lupin > transformed? I was thinking about the fact that he ran out of the > school having forgotten to take his potion ~ I mean, with >werewolvery being such a huge part of his life, I just don't see >him, on the night of the full moon, both forgetting to take the >potion *and* running out and putting others in danger of his >transforming, you know? > > But what if he thought he had time? It was the full moon that >night; he hadn't taken his potion; he had the map on his desk >(which is how he saw Pettigrew et al). > > What If: he knew it was the full moon that night, and was going to >go get his potion from Snape. However, he knew the kids might >sneak off re the Buckbeak thing. He glances at the clock. It's >evening, but on the first night of the full moon the transformation >does not occur until (to pick a common 'witching hour') midnight. >So he has time to check the map, make sure Harry & Co. are either >safe in their dormitory, or else to go collect them from wherever >they've snuck off to ~ and still get back, take his potion and curl up under his desk. > > He checks the map. Cue dramatic music: egad, there's Sirius! Near > the kids! And ~ can it be? It can't! But the map doesn't lie! ~ > Peter Pettigrew! Alive? How?? > > Things are a-clickin' in Lupin's mind. The kids are in danger; if > Peter is alive, then Sirius didn't kill him; if Sirius didn't kill > Peter, could it be that he didn't betray the Potters; he has to >get out there at once! In the excitement of the moment, he still >has at the back of his mind the full moon, but also the disarming > thought "*I still have time*." Running out now without taking his > potion will be cutting things close, but his split-second decision >is that he must. > > So out he runs...events happen...things get out of hand...and when > they leave the tunnel under the Whomping Willow, it's not the fact > that the moon breaks through that causes Lupin to change. The > appearance of the moon is simply what alerts Sirius to the reason > behind Lupin's sudden change in attitude. The cause of the change >is simply that Lupin's time has run out. Midnight of the first >full moon is at hand. >On the other hand, it explains, to me, four things that have >bothered me: > > 1. Why did he forget to take his potion, when it's so critical? >(He didn't; he just put it off, because he thought he would have >time to get to it later.) > > 2. Why did he run out of the relative security of his office on >the night of his transformation? (Again, he thought he had time to >get back to the potion/his office before he transformed.) > > 3. Why did he not transform until that one particular moment, >when it *seems* clear that the moon has been up for a while? >Because it isn't just the appearance of the moon, but the 'witching >hour' on the first night of the full moon that dicates his >transformation.) > > 4. Why did he berate himself and consent to leave Hogwarts, when > he'd only made the one mistake, and knew that so long as he stuck >to the potion he would be harmless in the future? (Because it >wasn't just that he'd put innocents in danger by forgetfulness; it >was because he'd made a conscious choice to take a risk, and in >doing so he realized that he'd taken his dangerous condition for >granted. He didn't forget his potion, he forgot to keep in mind >how dangerous he was. Which is almost scarier. Er, you know?) That's pretty nice work Mahoney did there, don't you think? The best part is that it makes Lupin out to be a thoughtful person who made a rational decision (consistent with his character) instead of an incompetent who can't remember the one thing he has to remember in order to avoid killing people. That's definitely moving in the right direction. It is also consistent with Lupin's characterization as careful, guarded and thoughtful. Now, the theory isn't perfect because Lupin shows no signs of keeping an eye on the time once he is in the Shrieking Shack. He doesn't say the obvious thing like, "You know, we'd better get a move on because I'm going to transform in about 90 minutes and eat all of you." But then again, he has just received a real jolt by finding Peter alive, he doesn't anticipate Snape's interference, and he is multi-tasking (dealing with Peter/Snape/Sirius and being outed as a werewolf). And heck, they were only minutes away from the castle when Lupin transformed. So his calculations were only off by a hair, weren't they? And if Snape had kept his hooked nose out of the whole affair, or had Snape been willing to listen in the Shack, Lupin would have made it back to the castle in *plenty* of time, right? A fabulous additional benefit of Mahoney's theory is that it neatly explains Lupin's failure to transform when the boggart turns into the moon. The boggart can turn into the moon all it wants to, but it is not the bewitching hour, so Lupin doesn't have to be concerned about transforming. Recall how Lupin vanquishes the boggart moon "almost lazily?" He isn't concerned because he knows he won't transform because it is not the sight of the moon, his fear of the moon, or anything else connected only with the moon that makes him transform. It is the bewitching hour *coupled with* the moon. So, Lupin critics, does Mahoney's Bewitching Hour Transformation theory put you at ease? Cindy (thinking it is high time we put Airhead!Lupin to rest once and for all) From suzchiles at pobox.com Fri May 31 20:48:17 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 13:48:17 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What constitutes HP cannon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39242 It's rather like a super-wand ... you load the cannon with spells and curses, point it at Voldemort, and fire when ready. Quite effective when battling very powerful forces. Though for the life of me, I can't figure out when Harry had the time to build the danged thing, what with Quidditch practice and all. Zoe > -----Original Message----- > From: milztoday [mailto:absinthe at mad.scientist.com] > Anyhow, way back when the group membership hovered in the triple > digits, we were hashing out what constituted HP cannon. From aiz24 at hotmail.com Fri May 31 20:55:21 2002 From: aiz24 at hotmail.com (Amy Z) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 16:55:21 -0400 Subject: Ron in touch w/ feelings, Harry comforting? (was Hurt-Comfort) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39243 Penny wrote: >I think at this point in the canon, Harry is head & shoulders above >Ron in >the department of being in touch with his feelings and being >capable of >having and responding to his own emotions as well as those >of others. Well, it's hard to know how in touch characters are with their own feelings. Harry generally is, sometimes isn't, and we know it because we're privy to his thoughts, and of course his churning stomach, tight throat, etc. I don't know about Ron--as with many real-life people I know, I *wonder* how in touch he is, how deep his feelings run, etc., but can only look at his behavior and try to guess. He wears his feelings on his sleeve more than a lot of people, less than others. I don't know if people who are easiest to read are necessarily the most in touch with their feelings. But to the other part: are you suggesting that Harry's better at comforting people? That was the original context, but I'm not sure if you left it behind when you switched to Harry or meant to carry it over. He has a very well-developed sense of empathy, and maybe if I pay attention on my next read through I'll notice him acting on it by being "comforting," but off the top of my head I can't think of many examples (his offering Neville his Chocolate Frog is a touching one . . . you can tell that the way to Amy's heart is to be nice to Neville). Harry reaches out in a certain way, e.g. suggesting that they make up with Hermione, apologizing to Hagrid for not helping with Buckbeak's defense, or trying to restrain Dobby from braining himself, but that's different than being comforting. Like Ron, he seems about as comfortable with being comforting as your average adolescent boy, namely, not very. Amy Z ------------------------------------------ Grenouille: I cannot go with you to the market today, Crapaud. Crapaud: But Grenouille, I cannot carry the cow alone. -Quidditch Through the Ages ------------------------------------------ _________________________________________________________________ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com From feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com Fri May 31 20:54:33 2002 From: feliciarickmann at dsl.pipex.com (Felicia Rickmann) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:54:33 +0100 Subject: What constitutes HP cannon? References: Message-ID: <003501c208e5$5e04c8a0$77c6bc3e@tinyjyuaxzlq> No: HPFGUIDX 39244 What constitutes HP cannon? > It's rather like a super-wand ... you load the cannon with spells and > curses, point it at Voldemort, and fire when ready. Quite effective when > battling very powerful forces. Though for the life of me, I can't figure out > when Harry had the time to build the danged thing, what with Quidditch > practice and all. > > Zoe > Everyone seems to be having so much fun with this, I have to chip in with my two penn'th worth (very old Muggle money) - Americans may substitute two cents....... I had always assumed that canon is * what JKR wrote * (including the smaller books) i.e. every Harry Potter word SHE wrote - no more no less, not the film or any future one, although these should be taken into the wider body of knowledge as overviewed so very well in the Lexicon. After all JKR wrote the words in the books and that's what we all love to talk about - isn't it???? Felicia From mrflynn6 at yahoo.com Fri May 31 21:05:33 2002 From: mrflynn6 at yahoo.com (mrflynn6) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:05:33 -0000 Subject: James - an orphan? also question on "blood relatives" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39245 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "elvishooked" wrote: > I have my own little theory about James - and don't kill me now - but > I think that James is actually the son of Voldemort... leading > Voldemort to be Harry's grandfather! > So many things point in that direction... > In a way I HOPE Im wrong on this one because that would ruin one of > the "great surprises" that Rowling must hold back. > Any thoughts? > > Inge > > I don't think that James/Harry are son/grandson of Voldermort's as Dumbledore said that Voldermort was the last remaining ancestor/descendent of Slytherin. If James was his son and Harry his grandson, they too would be related to Voldermort. Does it say somewhere that the Dursley's are the only remaining "blood" relatives of Harry? In SS it just says "relatives". If is says "blood relative" somewhere, could James been adopted and his adoptive parents still alive somewhere (could be Dumbledore is his adoptive grandfather, maybe)? From eleri at aracnet.com Fri May 31 21:29:10 2002 From: eleri at aracnet.com (CB) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 14:29:10 -0700 Subject: James - an orphan? In-Reply-To: <1022879138.2028.33299.m6@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.0.20020531142214.00a993f0@mail.aracnet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39246 At 09:05 PM 5/31/02 +0000, Jamie Lipton wrote: >And even though you could argue that >Dumbledore left Harry with the Dursleys to hide him from the wizarding world >(which the Potters would have been a part of, since we have no evidence that >James was muggle-born), you'd think someone would have introduced Harry to >his grandparents by now. Unless the Dursleys would have nothing to do with them. Any contact James' parents tried to make with Harry would have been turned aside. But Dumbledore does say that the Dursleys are Harry's only family, so the implication is that James' parents are deceased. This doesn't mean he's been an orphan since childhood. They could have died of old age when he was an adult, or been killed by Voldemort (or be DEs? *there's* a twist!!) Charlene From Edblanning at aol.com Fri May 31 21:26:57 2002 From: Edblanning at aol.com (Edblanning at aol.com) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 17:26:57 EDT Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: TBAY: MATCHINGARMCHAIR and the Ever So Frustrating Egg Message-ID: <171.e62777c.2a2944a1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39247 Charis Julia: > Eloise quoted me saying: > > > "Neville," Charis concludes happily closing the book with a > snap, "has Post?Traumatic Stress >Disorder! He's Spell?Shocked." > > > > > > > Sooooo, every loud noise makes his mind leap automatically to the > > Cruciatus. He can't help it. And especially after that nice little > > reminder of his parents torment courtesy of Monsieur Crouch which > > made all those old memories resurface with a vengeance. > > > > > > Of course this theory only works if Neville is * not* under a > Memory > > > And then she countered: > > >OTOH, I'm not so sure about this. > > > > >But what chiefly intrigues me is at what level the memory is wiped. > In fact, > >*is* it wiped, or merely suppressed? > >If memory charms merely *suppress* memory, then Neville might not be > affected > >on a day-to-day basis by the trauma he suffered as an infant, yet it > might be > >re-awakened in his subconscious by something such as the egg's > wailing. Charis Julia: > > Hmmm, well, no, sorry, I'm going to have to remain adamant here. The > idea the Neville is labouring under some kind of state of shock can > only work if we assume that he does in fact have a very clear memory > of the night his parents were Crucio?ed. If he doesn't, well, very > simply he doesn't have anything to be shocked * about*. I mean, what? > Did Neville just suddenly get a subconscious blast when he heard the > egg, leading to some kind of a Freudian slip so that he inadvertently > blurts out "It was someone being tortured!" and them recovers and > goes "Gee, did I just say that? Huh, fancy that! Where * do* I come > up with these crazy ideas? Oy, you there, hand me another one of them > custard creams will you?" > > > Errr, though, actually this is exactly what he does do, isn't it? > Ooops. Huh. > > Eloise: What I'm saying is that the egg's wails do exactly what you say. They act on one suffering from something like post-traumatic stress, as a trigger. Even if he has no *conscious* memory, the memories are there, if suppressed. Suppressed memories are much more dangerous than conscious one in that they, or the emotion which they evoke, will burst forth, unbidden. The egg does not really sound like someone being tortured (well, it doesn't to Harry or George or Seamus) but it is enough to provoke a flashback, perhaps. Charis Julia: > Ah, but the point still holds. If Neville does not have any memory of > the incident because of the Memory Charm set on him or whatever, then > his reaction would not be such an emotional one neither in Moody's > class nor at the Gryffindor common room. When seeing the spider one > would expect him to be * less* affected than Harry, who at least has > green light and screaming, and when hearing the wailing he might?if > his subconscious * did* kick in (and why should it if we are all in > agreement that the egg does * not* sound like people under Crucio) ? > he might halt a sec, sausage held midair, he might tilt his head > slightly sideways and raise his eyebrows in mild curiosity, he might > think "Now * where* did that sinking feeling come on from?", but he > needn't go around blanching and dropping food. That just doesn't work > for me. It somehow would seem excessive. > > Eloise: Harry doesn't know about Crucio until then, Neville does. Harry's parents weren't Crucio'd, Neville's were. Memory or no, the sight of the curse that deprived him of his parents, that illustrated the suffering they went through *must* have had a huge impact on him. Or do you mean that Harry should have reacted more at Avada kedavra? Well....Harry's had plenty of practice dealing with the *experience* of his parents' deaths through his exposure to the Dementors and his anti-Dementor training, so your theory of habituation works for *him*, here. And Harry's situation has some sense of completion about it. His parents are dead. He's always known that. In a way, the more he knows, the easier it is to let go. Neville's situation has no sense of completion. His parents are not at rest. He can't let go, because their shells still live on and he is constantly confronted by them. Poor Neville's situation, and that of his parents, is far worse, IMHO, than Harrys' or his parents'. Charis Julia: > > OTOH, if you've got your Neville with a strong Memory Potion seeping > through his veins, far from being excessive, his behaviour is > restrained. He is initially taken aback upon hearing from an external > source a noise he so strongly associates with his parents agony, but > quickly he realises his mistake and that he's gone and made a bit of > a bit of a prat of himself as Fred delicately puts it, not to mention > almost revealed his great, big, scary secret and so proceeds to plays > it cool by biting into a custard cream with feigned unconcern, all > his previous anxiety apparently dissolved. And when the custard cream > actually turns out to be a * canary* cream he laughs good?humouredly > along with the rest because he's actually * relieved* to have > attention centred somewhere other than that awful egg. After all > posing as a bird for a few moments for your friends amusement is * > nothing* compared to spilling your guts out in front of the whole > house. > > > OK, so you can take or leave that last part. But do you see my point? > JKR as a rule hardly ever has her characters overacting. Quite to the > contrary: from Harry almost all the time to Remus and Sirius's brief > and to?the ?point reconciliation, her heroes rarely indulge in > emotional outbursts even when fully entitled to them. And, what's > more, Neville in particular sure has done a great job up till now of > hiding his skeleton?in?the?family?closet. I'm thinking this boy ought > to be a past master at restraining his emotions. It must take > something really Big (and Bangy!) to make him let go. At least > something * much* bigger than "Ooo, hang on. . . deja vue flash. . ." Eloise: But I think restraint makes for explosion in the long term. Isn't this why Memory Charmers think that they have more Bang than Reverse memory Charmers? The huge Bang that will occur when Neville's memory is finally restored? > > Eloise continued: > > > >Another point I'd like to make is that even if Neville has no > *memory* of the > >events (and it would seem unlikely anyway, given his very young age > at the > >time, memory charm or no), or no conscious trauma caused by them, he > still > >*knows* what happened. He *knows* his parents were tortured; he has > to see > >the results every holiday. This is traumatic in itself. He doesn't > have to > >*remember* witnessing the Cruciatus performed on his parents to make > >connections. > > > > Yeah, but that's the * boring* explanation! It's the obvious thought > that pops into you're head when you find out about the Longbottoms > family history in the Pensieve scene. Surely there must be more to it > than that?! Otherwise what are we all doing here? ;--) Eloise: Oh dear, Eloise is being boring again! I must work on this one. ;-) But that (what I said) was just pointing out the obvious. I'm actually totally agnostic on the point of Memory Charms/Potions, etc., but I can see that the end result of a Memory Charm being broken would be one gigantic Big Bang. And much as I hold out against Banging in some situations, I concede that it really can be quite good fun. ;-) > I wrote: > > > > >> Sooooo, every loud noise makes his mind leap automatically to the > >> Cruciatus. He can't help it. And especially after that nice little > >> reminder of his parents torment courtesy of Monsieur Crouch which > >> made all those old memories resurface with a vengeance. Exactly. I agree. I just don't think that you need to constrain yourself to Neville having a continuous record of his parents' torture playing in his mind to make it work. And if the function of a memory charm *were* to suppress, but not wipe a memory, it could explain, as I did before, the fact that Harry reacts worse to Dementors, who have access to his memories and Neville to the egg which provokes an unsolicited emotional response to sound. > > Charis Julia, who thinks she would like to confront a Boggart, a > Dementor and the Mirror just once `cos she really has no idea what > her greatest fear, memory or desire are. Ah, well. Eloise, who doesn't know how she could possibly make her greatest fear seem ridiculous, would hate to be confronted again by any of her worst memories, but would quite like to know what she truly desires. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Fri May 31 21:54:49 2002 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (davewitley) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 21:54:49 -0000 Subject: What constitutes HP cannon? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39248 Milz wrote: > Hi everyone. I haven't posted in the group for a long, long time. > Hi, Milz, welcome back! > So what is the official HP for GrownUps policy statement ROTFL! > regarding cannon? I think the answer to that is that if you put three HPFGU members in a chat room together you get four opinions. I'd say the six books (including the schoolbooks). Interview responses etc are useful for interpretation and may contain the odd Useful Fact, but they have a way of being double-edged. But you knew that already. Can I congratulate you on your fortitude in holding out so long against the m***e. I think we have to consider that she would approve things for it that contradict the books, because there are other factors to take into account. E.g.: CC: Can we lose the Norbert escape scene, it's too long? JKR: OK, if you must, so long as Harry still meets the centaurs in detention. CC: OK. Is it OK for Hagrid to say Dumbledore made him send N away? JKR: Yes, that won't contradict anything important later on. etc. That's 'approval' - but it rather falls short of what is needed for 'canon', IMO. David From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk Fri May 31 22:22:36 2002 From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (Catherine Coleman) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 23:22:36 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] puzzlers, and possible sollutions to puzzles In-Reply-To: <007301c208bc$a241f2a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> References: <20020531153333.78793.qmail@web20804.mail.yahoo.com> <007301c208bc$a241f2a0$d8c2ded1@huntleyl> Message-ID: <5IUqrpAse$98IwP0@cator-manor.demon.co.uk> No: HPFGUIDX 39249 In message <007301c208bc$a241f2a0$d8c2ded1 at huntleyl>, Laura Ingalls Huntley writes >Stevens: >>I have no guesses where James was raised, but an >>orphanage is possible.? You see, I believe James is >>Tom Riddle's son.? That would make Riddle Harry's >>grandfather.? Please see my message 38784 on the >>'fatal child" theory. > >and Inge: >>I have my own little theory about James - and don't kill me now - but >>I think that James is actually the son of Voldemort... leading >>Voldemort to be Harry's grandfather! >>So many things point in that direction... >>In a way I HOPE Im wrong on this one because that would ruin one of >>the "great surprises" that Rowling must hold back. > >Wow, was that a coordinated assault?? ^_^...I've had ideas that tended >towards these theories in the past...BUT...in an interview JKR did say: >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Q: Is Voldemort some sort of relative of Harry's?? Possibly his mother's >brother? > >JKR:? I'm laughing...that would be a bit Star Wars, wouldn't it? >--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >Which implies no..but it could mean that she' s trying to throw us off the >trail..or it could mean..well.. >It could mean anything actually...make of it what you will. >laura I have personally never understood this theory. As much as I don't like theories which involve predestination and the like, I think that there is something in the Godric Gryffindor/Salazar Slytherin rivalry. Anyway, I do believe that James was an orphan, although how soon he became an orphan, I am not sure. My own pet theory is that all of the Potters were disposed of by Voldemort. The reason? I find the wording Sirius uses about Pettigrew in PoA interesting: "ready to strike the moment he could be sure of allies...to deliver the last Potter to them." The "last Potter", meaning Harry. Not just "Harry", but the last Potter. Why? Catherine From cindysphynx at comcast.net Fri May 31 22:24:55 2002 From: cindysphynx at comcast.net (cindysphynx) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:24:55 -0000 Subject: Sorting Out The Norbert Mystery (WAS What constitutes HP cannon?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39250 David wrote: > Hi, Milz, welcome back! Ditto! David (imagining how the Norbert managed to stay in the M***e): > CC: Can we lose the Norbert escape scene, it's too long? > JKR: OK, if you must, so long as Harry still meets the centaurs in > detention. > CC: OK. Is it OK for Hagrid to say Dumbledore made him send N away? > JKR: Yes, that won't contradict anything important later on. Can I just say that Norbert is just *killing* me? I found the Norbert episode in PS/SS superfluous at best. Then, in a Very Long M***e, they spent valuable time dealing with the Norbert subplot, for no apparent reason. Almost like JKR decided it *couldn't* be cut or something. I can't help but think that Norbert is going to be Important in future books, but I can't quite nail down how and why. Ah, but the text seems to provide quite a number of clues. There is the bizarre description of "Norwegian Ridgeback" in Fantastic Beasts: "It has been known to attack most kinds of large land mammal and, unusually for a dragon, the Ridgeback will also feed on water-dwelling creatures. An unsubstantiated report alleges that a Ridgeback carried off a whale calf off the coast of Norway in 1802." Hmmm. What an unusual description of Norwegian Ridgebacks like Norbert! Let's see. There is a lake on the Hogwarts grounds. Hagrid may take care of creatures in the lake, and he escorts first-year students across the lake. There are life forms like the Giant Squid in the lake. Hagrid is a very large land mammal. Indeed, Hagrid might be right around the size of a whale calf. So if you add it all up, it is clear that Norbert will re-enter the Hogwarts grounds and will attack the Giant Squid. Hagrid will attempt to protect the Giant Squid. Norbert will carry Hagrid off instead and rip him limb from limb high on a mountaintop somewhere. Harry will weep. What? Hey, what do you want from me? This is my instinctive reading of the text. If JKR didn't want me to read it this way, she should have written it differently. Her intent is meaningless to me; *I* get to decide what the text is telling us. And the text is telling us that Norbert is going to take out a beloved fictional character pretty soon. Cindy (seriously frustrated by the Norbert Mystery but nowhere close to solving it) From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Fri May 31 22:27:23 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:27:23 -0000 Subject: COS film pictures Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39251 Yes, I know this page isn't for film news, but Entertainment Weekly has just released the first decent set of production stills from COS movie. They look great! So pop over to the movie page to check out the URL... only if you are interested, of course. ;) Marcus PS: It is also linked through "The Leaky Cauldron." http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/ From foxmoth at qnet.com Fri May 31 22:39:32 2002 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:39:32 -0000 Subject: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes In-Reply-To: <006c01c208d4$755ea0e0$4f5ffea9@cq5hs01> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39252 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., Penny Linsenmayer wrote: > Hi -- > > Pippin: > > I can't help but feel, you know, that Ron appeals to a more mature > > taste (assuming he grows out of the jealousy thing), as he's a > > character that can give comfort as well as receive it. Penny: > I've been meaning to comment on this...but didn't know how (or whether I should) and Laura here has given me the perfect opportunity: > > Laura said: > > << And I very rarely see him giving comfort. His idea of comforting/defending/supporting someone is to *fight* for them...>>>> > Penny: > Hmmm. Yes ...er...."mature taste"? I admit that my first reaction was :::snorts of derisive laughter:::: But, then again, I'm not the biggest Ron fan on the planet. <<<< Okay, you can substitute "jaded and cynical" taste instead >From my "mother of one grown and one teenaged male" perspective, there are few male characters besides Dumbledore who don't have some growing up to do. I'd say Hagrid and Sirius are close by the end of GoF. Lupin is just too good to be true. Yes, he's a fabulous teacher, and in that light it's very telling that Dumbledore doesn't try to persuade him to stay on. I don't think Lupin's a hopeless case, mind you, but I do think he let Harry down, and that realization, just possibly, might be a catalyst for change. Penny: > But, seriously ... when does Ron show instances that he can *give* comfort? I've thought hard about this, and I can't really honestly come up with anything that falls into what I would subjectively rate as "giving comfort." <<< He invites Harry to play Quidditch when Harry is on edge about Sirius in Chapter 10, GoF. That was a very sensitive thing to do (pace Hermione). We know that's what helps Harry when he's anxious: "Quite apart from wanting to win, Harry found he had fewer nightmares when he was tired out after training." PS/SS. *Hermione* wants to go to bed, which is understandable, but Harry is full of adrenaline. He has a physical need to burn it off, and Hermione just doesn't get it. The walk around the lake was a good thing as far as persuading Harry to write to Sirius and helping him dodge the crowd. On the other hand, I don't know that Hermione helped any by sticking her oar into the Ron/Harry dispute. If she hadn't given Harry a handy explanation for Ron's behavior, he might have been motivated to find out first-hand what was on Ron's mind and they could've settled their differences a lot sooner. In the event, though I will admit Hermione made an effort, I don't see it as particularly comforting. Afterwards, Harry feels "a large weight of anxiety" and doesn't know what to do about it. I think Hermione is a wonderful girl but she's not just about perfect (I have no hope of convincing anyone who believes that she is. One thing I've learned from this list: love is blind.) Sometimes, IMO, Hermione is just as clueless as Ron when it comes to taking the emotional temperature. As a rallying cry, "You've got just as much right as wizards to be unhappy!" leaves something to be desired, don't you think? Penny: >>>I think at this point in the canon, Harry is head & shoulders above Ron in the department of being in touch with his feelings and being capable of having and responding to his own emotions<<<< Why? Ron seems pretty much at peace with himself by the end of GoF. He's made a decision to let go of his grudge against Viktor, as shown by asking for the autograph. He doesn't tease Hermione about Viktor wanting a "vord". He manages a conversation and a handshake with Fleur without turning purple and staring. All his concern on the trip home is for Harry, Hermione and his brothers. He doesn't express any envy of Harry for winning the Tri-wizard gold that I can recall. I just don't see this seething bundle of adolescent resentment--if anybody embodies that, it's Draco. Pippin From suzchiles at pobox.com Fri May 31 22:47:27 2002 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 15:47:27 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39253 > -----Original Message----- > From: pippin_999 [mailto:foxmoth at qnet.com] > > And the other two aren't? What's Hermione playing at with Viktor > anyway? Is anybody really comfortable about her being in a > relationship with a seventeen year old boy? What relationship? They went on a date to the Ball. And, as Hermione is the only non-Durmstrang person Viktor seems to have any contact with, she was chosen as his "most=missed" person for the 2nd challenge. But relationship? To my recollection, there isn't any contact between Herminone and Krum after the Ball. It doesn't seem like she agreed to go to meet him for the summer. It just doesn't smell like a relationship to me, at least from Hermione's state of mind. Zo From prefectmarcus at yahoo.com Fri May 31 22:52:57 2002 From: prefectmarcus at yahoo.com (prefectmarcus) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:52:57 -0000 Subject: What is canon? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39254 I don't think there is an offical statement. The best is to say that there are different tiers. The first tier consists of the published books. These include the four novels (so far) and the two school books. These are the standards. Everything else is held up to compare with them. If there is a conflict, the books win. The second tier contains the interviews and chats by Rowling. Most of what she says is canon. However there are several instances that she seems to be speaking off-the-cuff. So things must be taken with a grain of salt. The third tier are the interpetations of the books, such as the films and the book art. While Rowling does have an unusual amount of control, she doesn't control everything. She allows a great deal of artistic license with her works. The book specifically states that the hole behind the Fat Lady is round, yet the American chapter picture is square. Another example is the wide variety of placements of Harry's scar. Marcus From irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com Fri May 31 23:05:51 2002 From: irene_mikhlin at btopenworld.com (Irene Mikhlin) Date: Sat, 1 Jun 2002 00:05:51 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Hurt-Comfort and reader crushes References: Message-ID: <017301c208f7$b6710640$8bcb7ad5@oemcomputer> No: HPFGUIDX 39255 > And the other two aren't? What's Hermione playing at with Viktor > anyway? Is anybody really comfortable about her being in a > relationship with a seventeen year old boy? Yes, I'm comfortable with what we have seen so far. She really needed someone who respects her love of learning and sees her on her own and not as a part of the trio. Maybe we'll find out that Viktor has some less than honourable intentions, and then I'll change my mind. But most likely we won't see him again. > *Hermione* wants to go to bed, which is understandable, but > Harry is full of adrenaline. He has a physical need to burn it off, > and Hermione just doesn't get it. I must confess it took me several minutes to supress the (unintentional, I'm sure) double-entendre in the above lines. :-) Irene From midgiecat at aol.com Fri May 31 23:33:58 2002 From: midgiecat at aol.com (midgiecat at aol.com) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 19:33:58 EDT Subject: HPFGU Digest Number 1882 Message-ID: <3c.1f0ae1c3.2a296266@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 39256 Re: puzzlers, and possible sollutions to puzzles Varana wrote: > Puzzle #2: Was James Potter an orphan? > > Why have we not heard anything about James Potter's > family? Does this > mean he doesn't have any living relatives at all? If > so, what > happened to them? > Doesn't anyone remember what Harry saw in the Mirror of Erised?? I don't have the book in front of me so I can't quote, but it said something like ... not only were Lily and James Potter standing there, but rows and rows of people who looked very much like Harry, some tall and some short, but many with that same "hard to manage" hair. Generations and generations of Potters. I don't recall seeing a Riddle among them. Also, I believe Harry was told (possibly by Hagrid,, Dumbledore, or one of the marauders) that James didn't have to work at a job after Hogwarts, that he had inherited a great deal of money. I can't remember if that was in a book, or did I read that in a fanfic. If this is so, he couldn't have been brought up in a muggle or wizard orphanage. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Fri May 31 22:30:20 2002 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 22:30:20 -0000 Subject: Lupin Is Not An Airhead! (WAS Remus: Once more with feeling, ) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 39257 --- In HPforGrownups at y..., "cindysphynx" wrote: > Pip wrote about our dear, self-effacing, delightful, prematurely- > grey but-still-looking-young Lupin, who is so desperately in need of > the love of a good woman: > What's this? Another spirited attack on Lupin premised on the idea > that Lupin is forgetful and deserved to lose the only paid work he > has been able to find? Based on the assumption that Remus, that > Knucklehead, just forgot to take his potion that night? He's so > darn forgetful that he is an out-and-out menace to the entire > Hogwarts student body, so Snape's revealing Remus' secret was the > best way to protect all of those helpless students? Errr...[thoughtful pause] ...yeah, I'd say that was a pretty fair summary. ;-) > > Well! I must draw a line in the sand on this one. > > > > Remus Lupin Is *Not* An Airhead! > > Where's the canon? Did you ask whether I have *canon*? You betcha! > > First of all, Remus never once tells us that he "forgot" his > potion. > > The only one who says that Lupin forgot his potion is *Snape*, who > says, "You forgot to take your potion tonight." Canon indeed. Unfortunately, canon never once tells us that Remus actually "remembered" his potion. And it subtly supports the 'It's a good thing Remus isn't a member of the Headless Hunt because he wouldn't remember his own head if it wasn't firmly attached to his shoulders" school of thought by having Snape bring the potion to Remus the only time we see him taking the potion. > > Now, is there any good reason to believe Snape here? Just here? Is there ever any good reason to believe Snape at any point in the entire series to date? [grin] ( Except possibly when he thinks Harry isn't watching him). > So what's the best theory to explain why Lupin failed to take his > potion? For that, we have to turn to Mahoney's great Bewitching > Hour theory (Message 32,725), from which I will boldly copy the > following: > > Mahoney: > > > Do we have any concept at all as to what time it was when Lupin > > transformed? > > But what if he thought he had time? > >It's evening, but on the first night of the full moon the transformation > >does not occur until (to pick a common 'witching hour') midnight. > >So he has time to check the map, make sure Harry & Co. are either > >safe in their dormitory, or else to go collect them from wherever > >they've snuck off to ~ and still get back, take his potion and > curl up under his desk. > > >>In the excitement of the moment, he still > >has at the back of his mind the full moon, but also the disarming > > thought "*I still have time*." Running out now without taking > > his potion will be cutting things close, but his split-second > >decision is that he must. > > > > The appearance of the moon is simply what alerts Sirius to the > > reason behind Lupin's sudden change in attitude. The cause of > >the change is simply that Lupin's time has run out. Midnight of > >the first full moon is at hand. > Yup, I agree that a special timing was the probable reason Lupin only started to change at that moment. Old magic often believed there was a very *specific* moment when the moon changes from old to new, or into 'full' mode. > > Mahoney again: > >On the other hand, it explains, to me, four things that have > >bothered me: > > > > 1. Why did he forget to take his potion, when it's so critical? > >(He didn't; he just put it off, because he thought he would have > >time to get to it later.) > > > > 2. Why did he run out of the relative security of his office on > >the night of his transformation? (Again, he thought he had time to > >get back to the potion/his office before he transformed.) > > > > 4. Why did he berate himself and consent to leave Hogwarts, when > > he'd only made the one mistake, and knew that so long as he stuck > >to the potion he would be harmless in the future? (Because it > >wasn't just that he'd put innocents in danger by forgetfulness; it > >was because he'd made a conscious choice to take a risk, and in > >doing so he realized that he'd taken his dangerous condition for > >granted. He didn't forget his potion, he forgot to keep in mind > >how dangerous he was. Which is almost scarier. Er, you know?) > > > > That's pretty nice work Mahoney did there, don't you think? Yup. It's a good argument. In fact, it's a *very* good argument. It's even pretty close to what I say, which is that Lupin forgets his potion *because* he refuses to keep in mind how dangerous he is. > > The best part is that it makes Lupin out to be a thoughtful person > who made a rational decision (consistent with his character) > instead of an incompetent who can't remember the one thing he has > to remember in order to avoid killing people. That's definitely > moving in the right direction. It is also consistent with Lupin's > characterization as careful, guarded and thoughtful. Lupin? Incompetent? No. In denial and therefore refusing to remember he is a werewolf? Yes. > > Now, the theory isn't perfect because Lupin shows no > signs of keeping an eye on the time once he is in the Shrieking > Shack. He doesn't say the obvious thing like, "You know, we'd > better get a move on because I'm going to transform in about 90 > minutes and eat all of you." But then again, he has just received a > real jolt by finding Peter alive, he doesn't anticipate Snape's > interference, and he is multi-tasking (dealing with >Peter/Snape/Sirius and being outed as a werewolf). Isn't perfect? Two kids are screaming 'werewolf' at you and you don't think 'Ah, yes and I'm a werewolf who currently has a bit of a scheduling problem? Maybe I should miss out telling them my life story'? Snape comes in and makes snide comments about forgetting potions and you don't think 'Ah, potions, what does that remind me of? Yes, possibly a calm, reasoned (and slow) interrogation of Pettigrew is not the best choice of tactics when I'm a ticking time bomb in a room with three children'. Sorry, Cindy, but this is Mr In-Denial here. > > And heck, they were only minutes away from the castle when Lupin > transformed. So his calculations were only off by a hair, weren't > they? And if Snape had kept his hooked nose out of the whole > affair, or had Snape been willing to listen in the Shack, Lupin > would have made it back to the castle in *plenty* of time, right? Oh, and if Lupin had said in the tunnel, when they were moving so slowly that Sirius has plenty of time for his moving conversation about making a home for Harry, that it might be a *really* good idea if they figured out how to travel a bit faster, they'd have also made it back in *plenty* of time. In fact, if he had ever mentioned *at all* that there was a slightly important deadline pending, then I would be perfectly happy to believe that he was in complete acceptance of his werewolfhood and that he *wasn't* putting it so far out of his mind that it was probably halfway back to King's Cross on the Hogwarts Express. :-) > > A fabulous additional benefit of Mahoney's theory is that it neatly > explains Lupin's failure to transform when the boggart turns into > the moon. My theory is that he doesn't transform because a boggart-moon is not a true moon. When Lupin describes the boggart-dementor he says "It's the nearest we'll get to a real Dementor." ( PoA, UK hardback, P.175. ) Not 'it'll be the same as a real Dementor.' > > So, Lupin critics, does Mahoney's Bewitching Hour Transformation > theory put you at ease? > NO! Pip (Who thinks it was a very good try, though. ;-) ) From lee.farley at ntlworld.com Fri May 31 22:29:54 2002 From: lee.farley at ntlworld.com (LD) Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 23:29:54 +0100 Subject: the Ever So Frustrating Egg In-Reply-To: <171.e62777c.2a2944a1@aol.com> Message-ID: <000001c208f2$b05455a0$0dec6bd5@quack> No: HPFGUIDX 39258 Eloise wrote: >And if the function of a memory charm *were* to suppress, but >not wipe a >memory, it could explain, as I did before, the fact that Harry >reacts worse >to Dementors, who have access to his memories and Neville to >the egg which >provokes an unsolicited emotional response to sound. We *know* that memory charms just suppress memory, because Voldemort says he was able to break through Bertha Jorkins' memory charm(s) with (I assume) a big healthy dose of the Cruciatus Curse. If the memory had been wiped completely then Voldemort's torture efforts would've been useless, because the memory wouldn't be there to discover. Right? My thoughts on the egg are that it doesn't sound like *anything* except what it is - the egg. People have to interpret it differently because they have to make a best guess based on what they've heard before, or what they've been told of in class. Although I have to admit, Neville's whole suppressed-memory-of-parents-torture-eating-away-inside-until-he-explode s-and-goes-on-a-mad-rampage thing makes for a lot more Bang! :D >Eloise, who doesn't know how she could possibly make her >greatest fear seem >ridiculous, would hate to be confronted again by any of her >worst memories, >but would quite like to know what she truly desires. -LD, who doesn't know what his worst fear is, can't actually remember what his worst memory is and doesn't even want to know what he most desires, because that would take all the fun out of discovering it for the first time. From DaveH47 at mindspring.com Fri May 3 03:09:05 2002 From: DaveH47 at mindspring.com (Dave Hardenbrook) Date: Thu, 2 May 2002 20:09:05 -0700 Subject: [HPforGrownups] prejudice in the WW/Voldemort's baby form/Misuse of Muggle artiefcts/Sirius In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44177474799.20020502200905@mindspring.com> No: HPFGUIDX 46653 Monday, April 29, 2002, 7:02:00 AM, nuriaobradors wrote: n> Oh yes, yes, yes!!! That would be sooo cool!!! Specially for us n> girls who have a crush on Sirius shame on me, acting like a n> teen... That would be good for a future book,though I'm still hoping for Moody to rescue him in Book 5... (* Knock * Knock *) (Petunia answers the door) Petunia: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!! Moody: What's the matter, lassie? Never saw an Auror with a wooden leg, umpteen scars, a broken nose, and a magical eye before? (Edges in the room and eyes Dudley, wondering if he'd make a good ferret.) -- Dave