Center of HPverse/Transfiguring souls/Weasley specs/Beowolf/Radio TBAY/More

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 45299

Fyre Wood wrote:'

<< Draco is clearly the center of the HP universe. >>

Well, of course! Just ask him! 

Pip!Squeak wrote:

<< Snape, Harry, Dumbledore or *anyone* in the books don't KNOW 
they're in a book called 'Harry Potter and...'. >>

Dumbledore knows it. Snape thinks *he's* in a book called 'Severus 
Snape and the ...."

Veronica wrote:

<< Is there any evidence that a transformation is only a temporary 
change? If transfiguration is NOT temporary, do created animals have 
no soul? Do the soul's of transfigured animals remain captive in 
inanimate objects? Anyway, this is something I have wondered about, 
and I wondered if anyone else had considered it. >>

I am not aware of ANY evidence that Transfiguration ISN'T permanent. 
Didn't McGonagall have to use another spell to change Draco back out 
of being a ferret? I think listies have merely SPECULATED that 
Transfiguration is temporary, as an attempt to explain why the 
Weasleys don't Transfigure autumn leaves into fashionable new 
clothing and so on.

However, I get very confused when I wonder whether the Transfigured 
thingy's "real" nature remains hidden "inside" it, so that after even 
hundreds of year, Finite Incantatem will turn it back to its real 
self, even tho' the mage had no idea what its real self was ... or 
is turning it "back" just another Transfiguration? Did McGonagall use 
the same spell she would have used to change any natural ferret into 
Draco Malfoy?

Back when I first read Book 1, I kept whining to my friend about 
Transfiguration changing things between animate and inanimate 
(teacups into rats, hedgehogs into pincushions). When turning a 
hedgehog into a pincushion, what happens to the hedgehog's life 
(possibly aka soul)? Is it destroyed? The wizarding folk are Tough, 
so it wouldn't bother them at all that their schoolkids are killing 
mass quantities of animals just for practise, but one'd think it'd 
bother some of the Muggle-born.

When changing a teapot into a tortoise, where does the tortoise's 
life come from? Are the schoolkids creating a life? Isn't doing that 
by any means other than biological reproduction a bit god-like? This 
would apply even when the teapot had used to be a tortoise, if 
Transfiguring it into an inanimate object had killed it, taken its 
life away. My friend said that the animals created by Transfiguration 
from inanimate objects are automatons (someone said that about 
Diggory's dog) which have no souls, therefore are not really alive, 
unless the mage deliberately put part of his/her own soul into them 
to give them life. But apparently she thinks that the lifeless 
automaton has warm blood (for a rat, not a tortoise) and heartbeat 
and brain waves, and its mouth waters when it smells luscious food, 
all it lacks is creativity and procreativity.

GulPlum wrote:

<< On the subject of glasses, something else which may or may not 
prove important is that Percy Weasley wears them (a change in the 
MTSNBN which I deplore; I understand that Chris Rankin is himself a 
"four-eyes"!) whilst nobody else in his family does. >>

Arthur also wears glasses: CoS: ""He's back!" said George. "Dad's 
home!" They hurried through the garden and back into the house. Mr. 
Weasley was slumped in a kitchen chair with his glasses off".

Eileen Lucky Kari wrote:

<< Well, naturally, there's a temptation to say Unferth gave Beowulf 
a faulty sword so that Beowulf would fail. And people have had a 
lot of fun saying it. But you have to remember that this is a text 
written in a time when that sort of plot twist wasn't employed. >>

Why wasn't that sort of plot twist employed in stories, when that 
sort of treachery surely was used in real life? 


Pip!Squeak hosts a show: at Radio TBAY:

This is a forbidden LOL Post!

<<  But, *I* try NOT to smile. Filch is sobbing in a chair, and I am 
trying hard not to show him how funny I find it all. >>

Snape was being considerate of FILCH's feelings because Snape and 
Filch are friends, or "friends" ... remember it was Flich who 
bandaged Snape's leg that had been bitten by Fluffy. He wouldn't have 
bothered to conceal his amusement at someone else's over-the-top 
display of grief.

Richelle wrote:

<< Dumbledore said "Some of you in this Hall have already suffered 
directly at the hands of Lord Voldemort. Many of your families have 
been torn asunder." Now that "some of you have suffered" could go for 
anyone who was friends with Cedric. However, the "many of your 
families have been torn asunder" line is different. Who do we know 
who qualifies as having their family torn asunder by Voldemort? >>

I suppose a family which had lost a member to JUSTIFIED imprisonment 
in Azkaban would also count as having been torn asunder.

Christopher Nuttall wrote:

<< Certainly Peeves is very annoying, but no one seems to be able to 
get rid of him - or does he serve some useful purpose? >>

I believe that Dumbledore could get rid of Peeves if he wanted to. 
Canon: Filch in CoS: "That vanishing cabinet was extremely valuable!" 
he was saying gleefully to Mrs. Norris. "We'll have Peeves out this 
time, my sweet -"


Ben Jones wrote:

<< What motivates someone (Hufflepuff) to be loyal and diligent? 
I think they are motivated by reputation and want others to trust 
them. >>

Nonsense. Hufflepuffs are motivated by an inner sense of duty and 
they want to like themselves. Sort of cut-rate Gryffindors.