children'sbooks/onlyfamily/dead!Moony/loyal?Jr/S.Bones/Sectionalism/DarkSlyth

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

No: HPFGUIDX 44642

Judy Penumbra wrote:

<< But in our analyses of these books, which we all find so 
fascinating, we must keep in mind that they were originally intended 
for children >>

I'm surprised that no one has yet risen to give the traditional rant 
about these books were *not* originally intended for children, they 
were (according to JKR's own statements to the press) originally 
intended to please herself, and she never even thought they would be 
published for anyone else to read.

Barb Psychic Serpent wrote:

<< I fail to see how "the only family he has left" is open to 
interpretation. When it comes to LOONiness, those words are 
extraordinarily clear. This statement leaves absolutely no leeway; 
there is no way that Harry has relatives anywhere else, given 
Dumbledore's statement, assuming that he is a) telling the truth;
and b) fully informed of Harry's family situation."

I keep feeling that there may be an important difference between the 
words "family" and "relatives". My feeling of the way that Ancient 
Magic works is that it cares about blood kinship, so that if either 
Petunia or Lily had been adopted by the Evanses while the other was 
their birth daughter, the Ancient Magic wouldn't treat Petunia as 
Harry's relative. However, if the adoption were a binding magical 
contract, Petunia would still be Harry's *family*. 

And if Severus was Lily's birth brother (which I don't believe) but 
one of them was adopted out, if the adoption were a binding magical 
contract, then Severus and Harry would NOT be family. (Same for, if 
Petunia and Narcsissa were birth sisters but Petunia was adopted out, 
Narcissa and Draco are not Harry's family.)

And Sirius, as godfather, wasn't Harry's relative, but was family, 
but wasn't 'left' as he was on his way to Azkaban. I imagine that 
ways to be not-left include not only being dead, being in Azkaban, 
being hopelessly insane in St. Mungo's, but also being a loyal 
follower of the Dark Lord. 

Moonstruck wrote:

<< as I reread PoA, I can't help but notice several clues (which go 
along with others I'd all ready culled) pointing to the immanent 
death of Remus Lupin, whom I desperately adore. It's common knowledge 
that there will be more, higher-profile deaths in the remaining three 
books of the series. JKR has commented that Lupin will be back in OoP 
and I've heard (whether it's been confirmed or not, I'm unsure) he'll 
play a large roll in Book 7, so if he does die, I don't think it will 
be until the end of the series -- a small consolation. >>

I *hate* the idea of Moony (whom I also adore) dying without ever had 
any happiness in life. So unfair! I want Padfoot and Moony to survive 
and live together happily ever after. But JKR is writing a real (or 
realistic) history, so I expect they will be killed. To be even more 
depressing, someone suggested that Lupin could be killed in book five 
and still play a large role in book seven, as a ghost or even in a 
Pensieve'd memory. IIRC, JKR promised that we would learn more about 
why some people become ghosts and others don't.

However, I don't believe there is any evidence that silver is harmful 
to werewolves in the Potterverse. FB is sadly lacking in information 
on werewolves (not even listing the visible differences between the 
werewolf and the true wolf!) so it neither says that werewolves can 
be killed only by silver nor that silver's harmful effects on 
werewolves are another Muggle misunderstanding. 

Daniel wrote:

<< and he renounced him in court. Screamed that he wasn't involved 
yet is his most loyal servant. >>

This is a forbidden "I agree" post. Barty Junior's denial in court is 
a contradiction to his alleged flawless loyalty. However, we don't 
know that Junior didn't tell Voldemort about Harry being able to 
resist Imperius -- Voldemort may have thought "He can resist an 
ordinary person's Imperius, but surely he can't resist *mine*, the 
most powerful Imperius of all."

Abi jabig wrote:

<< I was wondering if those Bones were of any relation to Susan 
Bones. >>

Someone asked JKR and she said those Bones were Susan Bones's 
grandparents.

The Goat Pad http://www.geocities.com/aberforths_goat/ is where we 
search for JKR quotes. This time it gave me 
http://www.yahooligans.com/content/chat/jkrowlingchat.html
"matiaskanfunfa asks: There is a girl named Susan Bones who was 
sorted in the first book and there was a family called the Bones that 
Voldemort tried to destroy, is this a coincidence or will Harry meet 
her in future books?
jkrowling_bn: Susan Bones' grandparents were killed by Voldemort!"  

(Btw, this transcript also contains "Yahooligan_Ana asks: Hello, I 
would like to know if you ever read any Harry Potter fanfiction on 
the web.
jkrowling_bn: I have read some and I've been very flattered to see
how absorbed people are in the world")

The reason "Susan Bones" was so prominent in the celluloid-thing-that 
-must-not-be-named is that the actress was the director's daughter 
(so much for my impression that her Red Hair was a Clue!), but it can 
be argued that maybe he cast her as Susan Bones rather than as Hannah 
Abbot or Sally-Ann Perkes because of Susan Bones being an important 
character in future plot developments that JKR may have confided in 
him....

Ani bester wrote:

<< I really can't come up with a reason for keeping the houses 
hidden. It seems to breed sectionalism and discrimination, which 
you'd think Hogwarts would be against, given Dumbeldore's stance on 
issues. >>

Dumbledore probably isn't free to change all the old Hogwarts 
traditions, no matter how much he may disapprove of them, and 
keeping the Houses hidden is probably a VERY old tradition: I expect 
it started with the Founders. A couple months ago, there was some 
discussion on-list of how Hogwarts in particular and wizard culture 
in general is set up in a way that encourages Dark Wizards to try to 
take over. I don't know what word to search for to find that thread, 
but here is one long excellent essay in it: 
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/message/38398

JOdel wrote:

<< Much of the conundrum over how one can claim that all the known 
Dark wizards have come from Slytherin (Really? Not even any from 
Durmstrang? Say what you *mean*, Hagrid...) and still account for the 
likes of Peter Pettigrew comes unraveled when one remembers that to 
SUPPORT a Dark wizard does not make *you* a Dark wizard. >>

The quote I find in SORCEROR'S STONE (yes, US edition) is:
"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."

I think one cannot deny that Pettigrew went bad ... If Sirius had 
been guilty of betraying the Potters to Voldemort (as Hagrid believed 
he had, at the time he made that statement), one could not have 
denied that Sirius had gone bad. Hagrid was just exagerating; why do 
people take his words as gospel?

CHAMBER OF SECRETS (yes, US edition again): "For a few horrible 
seconds he had feared that the hat was going to put him in Slytherin, 
the house that had turned out more Dark witches and wizards than any 
other." Even tho' the authorial voice is telling us HARRY'S thoughts, 
it specifies "more .. than any other", not "all the ... ever".