[HPforGrownups] Re: Vauxhall Road again

[Shaun Hately]

No: HPFGUIDX 87257

On 17 Dec 2003 at 22:22, carolynwhite2 at aol.com wrote:

> Shaun, your research about the Vauxhall road name was marvellous, but 
> I am glad Annemehr whizzed in with this comment about the dating of 
> the diary (thanks Annemehr -waves - you beat me to it by about 1 
> minute !). 
> 
> I think you are clutching at straws here. I really think that the 
> phrase 'the faded year on the cover' says exactly what it means - its 
> a printed date, we presume 1943 from all the other canon evidence 
> cited elsewhere. Hermione spots the significance of this at once, as 
> she is no dunce, she means exactly 50 years ago, not approximately, 
> because she associates it specifically with the date on the shield, 
> and the last opening of the chamber of secrets. She says (caps are 
> JKR's emphasis in the text, not mine):

> 'And this diary is fifty years old' said Hermione, tapping it 
> excitedly.
> 'So'.
> 'Oh Ron, wake up' snapped Hermione. 'We know the person who opened 
> the Chamber of Secrets last time was expelled FIFTY YEARS AGO. we 
> know TM Riddle got an award for special services to the school FIFTY 
> YEARS AGO.'
> (CoS, p.174 UK edition)

To me that still doesn't definitively show the diary is exactly 50 
years old - though I agree that it very likely is.

Hermione's emphasis, to me, seems to have more to do with the fact 
that she believes she's made a connection that Ron is so thick that 
he's missed it. I don't think the emphasis necessarily implies the 
diary is *exactly* 50 years old. I'm not saying it's not likely 
that it is - I just don't think it's an absolutely certain fact.

Does it say *anywhere* that the diary (or the shield) is *exactly* 
50 years old, or that the Chamber was opened *exactly* fifty years 
ago? It might for all I know - I can't find any such reference 
myself.

Fifty years is a very round number - it's very often that somebody 
will refer to something happening 50 years ago when it was actually 
(say) 48 years ago, or 52 years ago.

We're working from a 1992/93 date for Chamber of Secrets and 
reading 50 years before - and assuming that *MUST BE* 1942/1943.

But unless we have a clear, definitive statement somewhere that 
says the Riddle-era opening of the chamber occurred *exactly* 50 
years ago, I'm not sure we can be that precise. People often 
aren't.

These are some of the references I can find. Page numbers are the 
Australian printings, which I believe have the same page numbers as 
the British editions.

"'You know I haven't, Goyle, how many times do I have to tell you?' 
snapped Malfoy. 'And Father won't tell me anything about the last 
time the Chamber was opened either. Of course, it was fifty years 
ago, so it was before his time, but he knows all about it, and he 
says that it was all kept quiet and it'll look suspicious if I know 
too much about it. But I know one thing - last time the Chamber of 
Secrets was opened, a Mudblood died. So I bet it's a matter of time 
before one of them's killed this time... I hope it's Granger,' he 
said with relish." (CoS, p.167).

"Harry saw at once that it was a diary, and the faded year on
the cover told him it was fifty years old. He opened it eagerly. On
the first page he could just make out the name 'T M. Riddle' in
smudged ink.

'Hang on,' said Ron, who had approached cautiously and was
looking over Harry's shoulder. 'I know that name... T. M. Riddle
got an award for special services to the school fifty years ago.'" 
(CoS, p.172-173)

"'Well, the Chamber of Secrets was opened fifty years ago,
wasn't it?' he said. 'That's what Malfoy said.'

'Yeah...' said Ron slowly.

'And this diary is fifty years old,' said Hermione, tapping
it excitedly.

'So?'

'Oh, Ron, wake up,' snapped Hermione. 'We know the person who
opened the Chamber last time was expelled fifty years ago. We know
T. M. Riddle got an award for special services to the school fifty
years ago. Well, what if Riddle got his special award for catching
the Heir of Slytherin? His diary would probably tell us everything 
- where the Chamber is, and how to open it, and what sort of 
creature lives in it - the person who's behind the attacks this 
time woulfn't want that lying around, would they?'" (CoS, p.174)

Now, none of them say *exactly* fifty years (and while there are 
other references, none of them I can find say *exactly* fifty years 
either).

In fact, at the time, Hermione talks about the fact that the 
Chamber was opened 50 years ago, that the diary is 50 years old, 
and that Tom Riddle receive his award, 50 years ago - at that 
point, the only thing she has seen first hand is the *Diary*. She 
hasn't seen the shield. She wasn't there for what Malfoy said. Her 
information does lack precision but she still makes the connection.

So the connection doesn't seem to be made based on *precise* 
information.

All the dates *COULD* be exactly 50 years ago - I'm just wondering 
though, if we're making a mistake of taking an *approximate* dating 
and assuming it's precise.

In fact - one clear point, that needs to be considered.

Using the Lexicon calendar, Ron sees Tom Riddle's shield on 
September 5th, 1992. Harry and Ron under the Polyjuice potion hear 
Malfoy say the chamber was opened 50 years ago on December 25th, 
1992.

Harry acquires the Diary sometime in January 1993. If the Diary is 
*exactly* 50 years old, that would suggest it's cover date is 1943.

That was the assumption the Lexicon originally used.

*But* the Chamber of Secrets DVD contains a timeline that 
apparently was reviewed and approved by JKR.

And that timeline places the Riddle era opening of the Chamber of 
Secrets in 1941/1942.

If that's so, we basically know the description of the diary as 50 
years old is *approximate* - because Harry was looking at a 1942 
diary in January 1993.

Now that doesn't change things in terms of my arguments about 
Vauxhall Road - because whether it was a 1942 or a 1943 diary, Tom 
still couldn't have bought it prior to the orphanages evacuation in 
September 1939 (not unless it was an add your own date diary, or a 
five year diary or something like that - which we have absolutely 
no evidence for).

But I do think we need to be careful not to always assume dates are 
precise, just because we have nice round numbers.

> On the issue of paper shortages and rationing - yes, they were quite 
> severe, and I would have thought that this would have pushed the 
> price up. Which makes me question even more where or how a poor 
> orphan boy found the muggle money to buy it.
> 
> So what if he didn't ? A further thought is that it was bought for 
> him by a muggle who could afford it. This would avoid the need for 
> Tom to be anywhere near dangerous, war-torn muggle London (though, I 
> suppose it wouldn't have been a dangerous place for a wizard, who 
> could protect himself from danger). 

Actually, I think it would most likely be very nearly as dangerous 
for a Wizard - often death came fairly suddenly, before you would 
have had time to protect yourself.

As for the idea that somebody else could have bought it, of course 
they could have - although that would wreck Harry's piece of 
deduction:

"'He must have been Muggle-born,' said Harry, 'to have bought a 
diary from Vauxhall Road.'"

Personally my view is there are plenty of ways Tom could have got a 
diary from Vauxhall Road - I don't see that as a major problem. But 
it was an issue somebody did raise in the thread, so I thought I'd 
consider it.

There's lots of other possibilities - most raids on London were at 
night - it was relatively safe during daylight hours. It's possible 
that children from the Orphanage could have been brought into 
London during daylight hours to see dentists, or doctors (after 
all, their records would have probably been stored with medical 
practitioners in the Stockwell area. The Clapham Road buildings 
were still used for administration purposes during the war - and 
it's possible if children were brought into London occasionally, 
they might have even slept there on odd occasions (that's total 
speculation - but it's worth noting, perhaps, that Stockwell 
Station, very near the orphanage, was used as an informal air raid 
shelter throughout the war - it was a pretty safe location to be in 
(eventually a proper shelter - one of the largest in London - was 
built under the station, but that wasn't open to public use until 
1944). 

> On the other hand (sorry, thinking aloud here), Tom would not have 
> been able to use magic to protect himself, as an under-age wizard at 
> the time (and as a star pupil and prefect he would have been noticed 
> if he had; this was long before he went really bad). Wonder whether 
> the MoM was as officious in policing this in wartime London.

Clause Seven of the Decree for the Reasonable Restriction of 
Underage Sorcery states that magic may be used before Muggles in 
exceptional circumstances including where the life of wizard or 
witch, or any witches, wizards of Muggles present is under threat. 
(OotP, p.135).

So, I guess he'd have got away with it.


Yours Without Wax, Dreadnought
Shaun Hately | www.alphalink.com.au/~drednort/thelab.html
(ISTJ)       | drednort at alphalink.com.au | ICQ: 6898200 
"You know the very powerful and the very stupid have one
thing in common. They don't alter their views to fit the 
facts. They alter the facts to fit the views. Which can be 
uncomfortable if you happen to be one of the facts that 
need altering." The Doctor - Doctor Who: The Face of Evil
Where am I: Frankston, Victoria, Australia