[HPforGrownups] Scarlet Woman/ Snape and Quirrellmort

[eloiseherisson at aol.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 45163

In a message dated 10/10/2002 12:54:37 GMT Standard Time, potter76 at libero.it 
writes:


> I'm sorry to come up with something completely alien to the discussions
> going on but reading one of the posts I remember that, when I came across 
> it
> in GoF, I couldn't understand the expression 'Scarlet Woman'. I got the
> impression it was some kind of joke or pun, but to understand the
> implication of that definition I need your 'assistance' as English
> mother-tongues. Thank you to anyone who will help.!
> 

'Scarlet woman' is a term for a prostitute, or promiscuous woman. It's 
probably Biblical in origin, coming from Revelation (xvii, 1-6) where the 
woman dresed in scarlet and purple is overtly a reference to Babylon ("Mother 
of Harlots" amongst other things), covertly probably a reference to Rome.
> 
> 
> And now something probably more to the point and that could fit in the 
> MAGIC
> DISHWASHER discussion. 
> As a former DE and one with the Dark Mark burned into himself, which is a
> connection to LV, Snape shouldn't have felt LV presence at Hogwarts,
> especially when dealing with Quirrell? What's more, during that year LV was
> getting stronger, even if not much, by drinking unicorn blood, shouldn't 
> the
> Dark Mark have shown this as it does later in GoF ( I can't recall if it 
> was
> Snape or Karkaroff who said that the Mark had been getting clearer every
> day)? AFAIR, there's nothing in canon to support this, but it adds to the 
> conspiracy theory', Snape knew but did nothing about it because he was
> working on a far more ambitious plan.

The reappearance of the Dark Mark seem to have coincided with Voldemort 
regaining  corporeal form. When Snape apparently starts to notice it on GoF, 
Voldemort has gained his 'ugly baby' form and it is as that body, cared for 
by Pettigrew and nourished by Nagini is getting stronger that the Dark Mark 
also gets stronger. When his body is properly restored, then the Mark assumes 
its full appearance.

We have discussed in the past whether or not Snape *may* have felt something 
right at the beginning of PS/SS when Harry's scar burns at the banquet and 
whether that was one of the things that put him on to Quirrell. But we don't 
have any of that uncontrollable gripping of left forearms or anything, so I 
guess that if he did feel anything it would only have been a twinge.


> 
> OTOH, LV should be aware, if not completely sure, of on which side Snape is
> because he was there when Snape threatened and tried to stop Quirrell. If 
> he
> trusted him he could have  revealed himself to his old follower and ask him
> to help getting the Stone. <> But unless he comes up with
> a very good story I can't see how LV will believe to the return of 'poor,
> misguided by Good Snape'.

I could try to answer that, but I won't! These days, when this issue comes 
up, I point people in the direction of Porphyria's comprehensive analysis and 
unified theory of Snape/Quirrellmort encounters, Message # 41072, which shows 
that the door is still open.

> 
> 
> One final though, I like very much MAGIC DISHWASHER but I feel it's way too
> complex for children and , even though the books are not exclusively aimed
> at them still, JKR knows that a big part of her readers are quite young (
> not for long, anyway, if she waits a little more to publish  book 5 - may 
> it
> be part of her plan? To wait till everyone is old enough to appreciate the
> MAGIC DISHWASHER?). 

Now we know what the delay is! ;-)


And wouldn't it be horrible to discover that our hero> 
> has been 'used' and raised with almost the sole purpose of giving his blood
> to the 'right cause'? If i were Harry I would feel cheated, and after 10
> years deprived of love to find finally people who cares for me and then
> discover that they did because they 'needed' me would be devastating.
> Everything I had come to believe in and everyone I trusted and loved would
> seem false and hollow, just empty lies. Isn't it something terrible to give
> children?

I think I rather agree with you.

I do think that the approach to morality in these books *is* very complex and 
that JKR wouldn't compromise her own views because these are "children's" 
books. (No, I know they're not, Penny!)

But I agree, that given that she does convey complex issues which are not 
always on the surface of the books, it would seem out of place for there to 
be such an unwelcome message of distrust hidden within the action. Is it a 
message she would want to convey to her own children? I think not. 

OTOH, it does seem that there are difficult issues of destiny, purpose and 
free will to be sorted out as the series progresses. If it is Harry's 
destiny, or becomes his purpose to defeat Voldemort, a purpose he willingly 
shoulders, then the adults concerned can be seen as working with that destiny 
or purpose, rather than simply using him. They are all part of a much larger 
picture.

Eloise

When I am dead, I hope it may be said:
'Her sins were scarlet, but her posts were read'
(After Belloc)

If only life were that interesting!





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]