[HPforGrownups] Re: Flesh-eating slug repellent

[jazmyn]

No: HPFGUIDX 47394



David wrote:
> 
> Yes, that was my reading too.  *However*, it could be:
> 
> - flesh-eating slugs only *really* become a menace after they have
> become angry and malnourished after eating a diet of rabbit-food, and
> Dumbledore has forbidden Hagrid from pacifying them by feeding them
> Mrs Norris;
> 

Maybe he is magically cross breeding the slugs with leeches?  Then they
got out of hand?  With Hagrid, one never knows and it not something that
one might want to ask about... Maybe Treelawny predicted that the slugs
that Ron puked up would run amok and he got the stuff for them to use
later? What is Rowling's thing with slugs anyways? Its as bad as socks!
I mean, flesh-eating slugs, puking slugs up and bursting giant slugs at
the World Cup? 

How do you tell if a slug is angry, anyways?  And why Mrs Norris? Poor
little red-eyed evil demon kitty...or whatever she is... 

> - they are called flesh-eating slugs because normally they eat flesh,
> but what they really like is a nice tender cabbage.  Hagrid,
> naturally, isn't bothered as long as only a few students are at risk
> and anyway, that's not his department; however, once his cabbages are
> threatened he gets serious;
> 

Never stand between a man and his cabbages, I say... 

> - Hagrid's cabbages are special.  They require a regular diet of red
> meat to achieve their full potential.  The flesh-eating slugs are
> competing, and have to go;

Maybe the cabbages ARE made out of meat.. a special species of magical
meaty cabbages.  Yum? 
Maybe he plants then with corned beef to save time later?

> 
> - he is hoping, by strategic placement of the repellant, to drive the
> slugs in the direction of Mrs Norris, whose skeleton will be found
> mysteriously picked bare, and the connection with Hagrid will never
> be traced.
> 

Whats he got against the cat, anyways? ;)

> David, who would like to know (offlist, I think) the basis for
> believing JKR is 'explaining more details to the studio than we ever
> get from her books'.


(Movie stuff after this... So ignore it if you are a literary snob..
err... canon-cop... err.. I mean you hate the movie.. or whatever...)





>From my understanding from the early interviews I suffered hearing about
in a house full of slobbering HP fans, the rights to the books were with
the stipulation that Rowling had script control. Certainly they did buy
rights to 7 books and only 4 are writen from what I had heard on some
radio interview I heard in CA before I moved off to Texas. If in fact
they bought rights to books not writen yet, plus the 5th book seems to
be frozen with no release date, I fear the 5th book may not be released
till there is a 5th movie as movie dramatizations?  (gack!  Can't wait
THAT long or hope the movies keep getting made!)  However, the whole
argument as to if the movies are in any way canon is as pointless as the
Lion King fans claiming Timon and Pumba (cartoom) is not canon.  Next
time Rowling does an interview, ASK her point blank how much control she
has over script changes.  Certainly the characters are very true to the
books in a way that is more then just their having read the books would
hint at. (side note: Anne McCaffrey's Dragonrider series was bought by
Warner Bros and she pulled the project because they tried to change the
story and she was totaly inflexible about script changes.. Its a thought
they went with Rowling because she was willing to work with them.)

(sleepy now and not spell-checking.. cope)
Jazmyn