Arthurs Wound

[meriaugust]

No: HPFGUIDX 86731

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Vicky Gwosdz" 
<vicky.gwosdz at g...> wrote:
> --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "thelinnealand" 
> <LinneaLand at C...> wrote:
> > The snake at the MoM gave AW a wound that was so large they were
> > trying stitches to help it close. Not the usual snakebite.
> > This sounds to me more like the Basilisk (huge fangs) wound that 
> Harry
> > got in CS rather than something a snake like Nagini (sp) might 
make.
> > That Arthur didn't end up petrified might be just luck.
> > 
> > I am bugged about this whole scene largely because Dumbledore 
didn't
> > just ask Fawkes to go to Arthur and save him as he did Harry in 
CS.
> > One Pheonix tear and Arthur would be back on his feet again, 
problem
> > solved and no one the wiser.
> > 
> > Linnea
> 
> When Fawkes saved Harry DD said something (and now I'm trying to 
> translate from Dutch) about Harry showing exceptional loyalty to 
DD.  
> Otherwise Fawkes would not have come to his rescue.
> 
> So I assume that even though Arthur fights the good fight and is in 
> the Order, he did not show any "exceptional loyalty" toward DD.
> 
> Vicky

Also it seems to me that JKR makes a big deal of pointing out that 
magic is not a cure all for every ailment, magically induced or 
otherwise, After all, Harry and several other characters still wear 
glasses and sport scars, and no one could just wave a wand and give 
Frank and Alice Longbottom back their minds (or Lily and James Potter 
their lives) could they? And, as to why Fawkes didn't swoop in to 
rescue Arthur (aside from the loyalty thing, which is a good point) a 
rather large and brightly colored phoenix known to belong to 
Dumbledore would be pretty hard to hide or explain away, and I am 
sure that Fudge would have seen that as a sign of Dumbledore's 
treachery. 
Meri