From lucky_kari at yahoo.ca Sat Feb 1 00:34:12 2003 From: lucky_kari at yahoo.ca (Eileen) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:34:12 -0500 (EST) Subject: The Train Stomp vs. Dissin' The Slyths WAS Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: House points In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030201003412.44002.qmail@web20417.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51313 --- "Jim Ferer " wrote: > Tarnished? After what Draco and his cronies said? No > way. They showed > admirable restraint. Well, that's a new one. I certainly hadn't thought of cursing someone and then walking over them as restraint. I suppose they could have done worse things. Beat them to a pulp and then threw them out the window. But I can't see how this can be construed as restraint. > This connects strongly with something that's a real > issue for me. We > live in a cynical age, which we have created and > sustained by holding > up people to inhuman standards of behavior which can > only be > disappointed. As we tear people down because they > couldn't reach > impossible heights, we get more cynical. It's a cynical age because we've raised our standards of behaviour? If so, give me cynicism. As a student of history, especially the early Middle Ages (aka Dark Ages), I really think that quite a few people back then would have benefitted from a little "cynicism" or rather, a higher standard of behaviour. I don't know if humanity has exactly approved - the history of the 20th century might suggest otherwise - but our standards certainly have. And, again, I think that's a good thing, even if we sound more "cynical." How do we avoid actually being cynical? Not by lowering our standards, certainly. By recognizing that people can fail our standards and still be good people. Harry and Ron fail my standards so often during the books, that's it's incredible, but I still think they're inherently good people, and they'll grow up to be decent adults. > Take it down to the scene on the train. I can't > imagine 99.99999% of > the people on Earth being able to endure that > provocation - gloating > over the murder of a good person? It's monstrous, > and unquestionably > "fighting words," (a legally recognized concept of > words so > provocative a reasonable person can't be expected to > endure them). The law is very necessarily not the same thing as morality, though the two are very connected. There are many things that the law quite rightly does not punish at all or punishes lightly that are not really good things to do. The fact that 99.99999% of the world's population would be provoked by someone like Draco doesn't make the fact less troubling. In fact, it makes it more troubling. Would I be able to keep my temper in a case like that? Judging by my track record, no. And that's a bad thing. It says things about the human condition that aren't very positive. It points to the fact that we are so easily, almost inevitably corrupted. Which was what I thought GoF was about, actually. > In another age, among (adult) gentlemen, Harry's > friends would have > visited Draco's friends to demand satisfaction. We > don't duel > anymore, Yes! And that's a very good thing, because duelling was a bad thing! In the wizarding world, of course, they do. :-) > but do you consider the Trio "tarnished" by > giving those vile > odious excuses for humanity part of what they > deserved? They'd have > been tarnished if they hadn't. So, blessed are not the peacemakers and those who peacefully resist? Do you really believe that only violence can be a response to hateful remarks? > JKR seems to understand and accept the concept of > rough justice, and > I'm glad she does. I don't think she does. In one way, the text does support rough justice, in that I think the authorial voice does approve of Draco or Dudley getting their just deserts. But I'm not entirely sure that she approves of people meting out the just deserts. It's like the Shrieking Shack. Heaven knows Peter deserves a lot, but it's not right for Sirius and Lupin to kill. And, in the context of GoF, the Train Stomp is not exactly free from from thematic questions. This is a book which emphasizes at every corner the dangers of fighting "violence with violence." Of becoming as "cruel as many of those on the Dark Side." The signs of subtle moral failure at the end of the book is therefore rather frightening. My gut feeling is that someone, probably not the trio or Fred and George, is going to end up doing something very bad. >We know that the trio and Fred and George are not >evil people. Yes, I completely agree. But decent people can do bad things. It'd be a lot easier, really, if it weren't that way. Eileen ______________________________________________________________________ Post your free ad now! http://personals.yahoo.ca From bboy_mn at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 00:55:43 2003 From: bboy_mn at yahoo.com (Steve ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:55:43 -0000 Subject: The Train Stomp vs. Dissin' The Slyths WAS Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: House points In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51314 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer " wrote: > Eileen:"It is difficult for me, after reading an entire book which > explores the ways in which the good guys are less than good, to read > the Train Stomp without a certain degree of apprehension. > - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > JIM: > > I don't think the Train Stomp makes Ron, Harry, Hermione, Fred, or > George evil, but it is very troubling. Is it indicative of things to > come? My reaction was, "Oh no, where is this going? ... > > (Are our characters)...Tarnished? After what Draco and his cronies > said? No way. They showed admirable restraint. > > ...edited... I can't imagine 99.99999% of the people on Earth being > able to endure that provocation - gloating over the murder of a > good person? > > JKR seems to understand and accept the concept of rough justice, and > I'm glad she does. We know that the Trio and Fred and George are > not evil people. > > Jim Ferer bboy_mn: I'm glad people have already addressed the issue of provocation. Not only did Draco insult the memory and name of a very fine noble young man (Cedric), but he told H/H/R that they were next. He threatened them with death. The point I want to make is that none of them really knew that the others were about to curse Draco too. Each made an independant choice and acted on it. It is just by chance that they all cursed at once and that the resulting effects were amplified by the combined simultanious curses. Each of them threw a typical childish harassment curse; jelly-legs, etc.... None of them intended the degree of (in the very general sense) harm they caused. Although, the only lasting harm, would be to their egos. I also think that the first competent witch or wizard to come by, could sort the mess out in short order. Again, these were not truly assaultive curses (example: Stunning curse), they were childish harassment curses. As a side note: Draco did threaten them with death. That type of threat could be considered an assault. I'm no legal expert but in the concept of 'Assault and Battery', it is Battery that is represents physical contact which would imply that you can be assaulted without physical contact. If, due to the statements or intentional actions of another person, you fear for your life or fear bodily harm, you have already been assaulted. The point I'm making here is that I'm not buying any poor innocent Draco arguments. Just a few thoughts. bboy_mn From dfrankiswork at netscape.net Sat Feb 1 00:57:10 2003 From: dfrankiswork at netscape.net (David ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:57:10 -0000 Subject: Symbols and reality (was Not Slytherin, not Slytherin) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51315 Derannimer wrote: > > JKR hasn't marked the Slyths as bad just to prop up a shallow > dualism--she's setting up the central conflict of the series: > Muggle-lovers vs. Muggle-haters. Inclusion vs. Elitism. Acceptance > vs. Genocide. Love vs. Bigotry. > > Now me: > > Yes, and that's exactly the problem I have with her portrayal of the > Why is there *such* a one-to-one correspondence between ambition and > evil in the books? Well it may be partly a British thing. We really don't like ambitious people here. Dicentra has already pointed out the two kinds of ambition: for a goal and for yourself. We don't really approve of either type. The first are unrealistic visionaries who bring trouble on us all (You mean you think this Gandhi guy was a good thing?) and the second are on the make. > This is one of the biggest problems I have with the story: the > conflation of the school rivalries and the larger struggle. *Why* is > it that all the Bad Guys are coming out of *one House in a boarding > school?* The one house, moreover, that Harry most wants to beat at > Quidditch? > > I don't know; usually I enjoy the way the genres in the books > interact, but the Boarding School/ Fight Against Evil concurrences I > find problematic. The Gryff/Slyth rivalries tend to reduce and > *shrink* the broader conflict, for me. I think this touches the heart of the argument over the pointgiving at the end of PS. If you see the Slytherins as people caught up in the struggles of the Wizarding World, then it doesn't make a lot of sense. If you see them as symbolic opponents of the heroes, then a symbolic trampling down (GOF train stomp?) is required to make the hero's victory complete. The symbolic story requires, IMO, a scene in which the common people can see the victory of good over evil ritually enacted. The Slytherins are acting a part in a play in which evil very nearly triumphs (Voldemort almost gets the stone; the very banners of the enemy are in the heart of the stronghold of the good) but at the last possible moment good triumphs through wit and bravery. What makes the story awkward for the reader, IMO, is that we are also encouraged to think of the Slytherins as people with human failings and potential for development. For that to work completely here, they have to be *told* that they are only actors, and that is a bit weird, since it is their whole being as characters in the story that forms the show for the spectator. Imagine being told that you are destined to fulfil some unpleasant role in life in order to illustrate a lesson. What good will that lesson do you? Not a lot. I think this ambiguity between the symbolic and the realistic (is that the right word?) is relevant to other forms of discomfort expressed on the list. Are the Dursleys symbols of abandonment and displacement, or are they people? Is Hagrid a representative of damage and rehabilitation, or is he actually supposed to try to use professionally effective teaching methods? Is Dumbledore a vicar of divine attributes, or a master plotter? Is butterbeer a symbol of ruin or a wonderful practical solution to the problem of giving children the pleasure of alcohol without its bad effects? Is magic an open display of the range of hidden issues that confront us as people or is it actually supposed to work consistently in the Potterverse? David From susannahlm at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 01:12:32 2003 From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (derannimer ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 01:12:32 -0000 Subject: Not Slytherin, not Slytherin Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51316 Oh dear. I don't think I've explained myself properly. Because Dicentra wrote: >We don't know for sure that the bigotry is confined to House >Slytherin, nor do we know for sure that all Slytherins are bigots. >They are most certainly all pure-blood, but so are the Weasleys, and >they aren't bigots. Again, we don't know how bad all Slytherins are. >Snape, the head of House Slytherin, is nasty but is turning out to >be a rather moral person. And we have the example of Gryffindor (we >think) Peter Pettigrew, who is single-handedly responsible both for >the murder of Harry's parents and for Voldemort's return (heh, pun >intended). And this is actually something I agree with. See, in your original post, Dicentra, I got the distinct impression that *you* thought that all the Slyths were bad. You wrote: >JKR hasn't marked the Slyths as bad just to prop up a shallow >dualism--she's setting up the central conflict of the series: Muggle- >lovers vs. Muggle-haters. Inclusion vs. Elitism. Acceptance vs. >Genocide. Love vs. Bigotry. Which gave me the idea that you thought all Slyths were bad. I wrote my post in reaction to that; I meant to say that *if* that turns out to be true, and all the Slyths are Bad and all the Bad are Slyths, then I will find it exceedingly disappointing and rather contrived. That isn't what I believe, and heaven knows it's not what I hope. But I thought that *you* believed it, and that you had no problem with it. >It will be interesting to see to what degree the house rivalries >diverge from the real-world conflict in the next three books, if at >all. >--Dicentra, who sincerely hopes they will Derannimer (who hopes so too) From skelkins at attbi.com Sat Feb 1 01:49:04 2003 From: skelkins at attbi.com (ssk7882 ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 01:49:04 -0000 Subject: The Train Stomp vs. Dissin' The Slyths WAS Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: House points In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51317 Jim wrote: > This connects strongly with something that's a real issue for > me. We live in a cynical age, which we have created and sustained > by holding up people to inhuman standards of behavior which can > only be disappointed. As we tear people down because they couldn't > reach impossible heights, we get more cynical. I respect that this is an issue about which you feel deeply, Jim, so I want to tread lightly here, but perhaps we have somewhat different understandings of the meaning of "cynical?" It has always seemed to me that the sort of moral cynicism to which I assume you refer derives far more from an utter *abandonment* of ethics (ie, "standards of behavior") than it does from an over- scrupulous insistence on them. In reference to canon, I would say that the forces of moral cynicism are represented in the text by Voldemort's "no good or evil, only power and the will to seek it." It is also reflected, IMO, in House Slytherin's emphasis on winning at all costs -- using *any* means to achieve ones ends. The oppositional viewpoint, on the other hand, seems to me to be represented by Dumbledore's insistence on upholding moral standards of behavior -- lines in the sand, so to speak. So, for example, we are told that he did not resort to the use of the Dark Arts in the fight against Voldemort, even though by doing so he might have achieved victory. As for holding people up to somewhat "inhuman" standards of behavior, I think that the books do rather support this as a virtue. Lily did, after all, give her *life* to save her son. That's a pretty inhuman standard of conduct right there, isn't it? Yet, I believe that we are meant to read her as an exemplar. Similarly, in the Shrieking Shack, Sirius tells Peter that he *ought* to have been willing to die for his friends, a statement that has struck some listmembers as rather harsh: a rather inhuman standard to which to expect compliance. Yet I believe that JKR *does* mean for us to accept the statement as moral truth; she reinforces the concept earlier in the scene, by having Ron effectively offer to be killed right along with Harry. On the more human level, the books also show us quite a few examples of people failing to uphold ethical standards. Sometimes, as with Snape, they manage to redeem themselves. Sometimes they do not. I would say that the moral universe of the books is both hard-nosed and compassionate about human fallibility. Atonement is always possible - - but it's hard work. And moral failings may be both human and sympathetic -- but they are still portrayed quite firmly as *failings.* > Take it down to the scene on the train. . . . In another age, > among (adult) gentlemen, Harry's friends would have visited > Draco's friends to demand satisfaction. We don't duel anymore, > but do you consider the Trio "tarnished" by giving those vile > odious excuses for humanity part of what they deserved? We don't duel anymore, no. But wizards do. And when they do so, they are *not* supposed to be cursing their enemies in the back. Which is precisely what Fred and George did on that train. I dare say that they're also not supposed to be stepping on their unconscious opponents. It's never been specified, of course, but I rather suspect that a culture with a duelling protocol that includes bowing before combat also probably has a word or two to say about the proper treatment of ones defeated foes. Of course, just because the society *has* those rules doesn't mean that everyone's always going to abide by them, either in letter or in spirit. Voldemort's "duel" in the graveyard wasn't precisely fair combat either. > JKR seems to understand and accept the concept of rough > justice, and I'm glad she does. JKR also seems to understand -- better than most authors, I'd say -- both the temptations and the perils of the ethos of vengeance. I suspect that part of the reason she can write so well about the latter is because she is also remarkably adept at depicting the former. Would the end game of PoA have been nearly so dramatically effective, had it not taken place in the context of a series in which "just desserts" humor is so *very* prevalent, or in which the statement "s/he deserved it" had not been repeated so often over the course of the novel that it had come to read like a kind of a mantra? It seems quite clear to me that the highest standard of behavior in the Potterverse is not being set forth as 'an eye for an eye.' This leads me to read scenes in which characters fail to live up to higher standards with a very interested eye. It does seem to me that in these books, spiritual temptation often takes the form of the desire for "payback." Snape in PoA is an excellent example. So is that jeering hysterical mob in the Pensieve scene in GoF. > We know that the Trio and Fred and George are not evil people. No, they're not. But I think that if we are to resist the lure of cynicism, then we must recognize the fact that right and wrong remain right and wrong no matter who happens to be doing them. Fundamentally decent people can and do fall into moral error. Wasn't that a major running motif throughout GoF? Elkins From jazmyn at pacificpuma.com Sat Feb 1 01:37:50 2003 From: jazmyn at pacificpuma.com (jazmyn) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:37:50 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Not Slytherin, not Slytherin References: Message-ID: <3E3B24EE.83E200EB@pacificpuma.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51320 Dicentra wrote: >We don't know for sure that the bigotry is confined to House >Slytherin, nor do we know for sure that all Slytherins are bigots. >They are most certainly all pure-blood, but so are the Weasleys, and >they aren't bigots. Again, we don't know how bad all Slytherins are. >Snape, the head of House Slytherin, is nasty but is turning out to >be a rather moral person. And we have the example of Gryffindor (we >think) Peter Pettigrew, who is single-handedly responsible both for >the murder of Harry's parents and for Voldemort's return (heh, pun >intended). > There is no canon to support the idea that all Slytherins are purebreds. Tom Riddle was not a pureblood and the sorting hat wanted to put Harry in Slytherin and he is not pureblood either. We don't even know is Snape is pureblood. Might explain his leaving the death-eaters if in fact he is not pureblood and he lost any family members over it. Would explain his bitterness if that was the case. I would think there are a higher percentage of purebloods in that house, maybe. Trouble is, all the ones we see are the ones who hang out with Malfoy, so we simply don't see the Slytherins that are not part of his 'gang'... Jazmyn From siskiou at earthlink.net Sat Feb 1 02:05:02 2003 From: siskiou at earthlink.net (Susanne) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 18:05:02 -0800 Subject: Failing Standards?, was Re: The Train Stomp vs. Dissin' The Slyths WAS Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: House points In-Reply-To: <20030201003412.44002.qmail@web20417.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20030201003412.44002.qmail@web20417.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <33191679705.20030131180502@earthlink.net> No: HPFGUIDX 51321 Hi, Friday, January 31, 2003, 4:34:12 PM, Eileen wrote: > Harry and Ron fail my standards so often during the > books, that's it's incredible, but I still think > they're inherently good people, and they'll grow up to > be decent adults. I noticed that you left out Hermione. Does she not fail your standards at all, much less often...? Just wondering, since Hermione has surprised me a time or two . -- Best regards, Susanne mailto:siskiou at earthlink.net From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 02:35:17 2003 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 02:35:17 -0000 Subject: The Train Stomp: What does it say about the Trio? In-Reply-To: <20030201003412.44002.qmail@web20417.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51322 Eileen:"Well, that's a new one. I certainly hadn't thought of cursing someone and then walking over them as restraint." Considering what Draco and his goons did, I did. Eileen:"Harry and Ron fail my standards so often during the books, that's it's incredible, but I still think they're inherently good people, and they'll grow up to be decent adults." Their flaws - their variance from an ideal - make them human. Those 'flaws' - Harry's willingness to go outside rules, for example - serve him well, and they've served his friends and his school well. Harry is not sadistic or cruel, nor does he prey on the weak. By default, he is good and friendly. Same for Ron. If in the future Draco leaves Harry alone (fat chance), Harry will leave Draco alone. He always would have left Draco alone. That's enough. I will not hold Harry, Ron, or Hermione (about as non-violent a person as there is in canon)to standards no one can achieve, because unattainable standards have no validity. Eileen:"So, blessed are not the peacemakers and those who peacefully resist? Do you really believe that only violence can be a response to hateful remarks?" Peacemakers are brave and pay a high price, usually, but they are not the answer for every situation. There is no peace with Voldemort or his supporters, any more than you could use conflict resolution against smallpox. The irredeemable can at least learn their venom has consequences. Eileen:"Would I be able to keep my temper in a case like that? Judging by my track record, no. And that's a bad thing. It says things about the human condition that aren't very positive. It points to the fact that we are so easily, almost inevitably corrupted." No, it doesn't say bad things about you, Eileen, it just says you have heart and passion. It's the qualities of caring and your moral compass outraged by the unbearable. You would be less human and alive if you didn't 'lose your temper,' just as the Trio couldn't help themselves. It's saying "they failed, nobody measures up, It's a disappointment," that's the path to cynicism. I wouldn't want the Trio to be any way but the way they are. Will they grow? Yes. Good. But they're going to need that toughness if they're going to live through this. Jim From dicentra at xmission.com Sat Feb 1 03:00:30 2003 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63 ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 03:00:30 -0000 Subject: Doing the Two-Step In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51323 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Steve " wrote: Eileen: "It is difficult for me, after reading an entire book which explores the ways in which the good guys are less than good, to read the Train Stomp without a certain degree of apprehension." bboy_mn: The point I want to make is that none of them really knew that the others were about to curse Draco too. Each made an independant choice and acted on it. It is just by chance that they all cursed at once and that the resulting effects were amplified by the combined simultanious curses. Each of them threw a typical childish harassment curse; jelly-legs, etc.... None of them intended the degree of (in the very general sense) harm they caused. Although, the only lasting harm, would be to their egos. Dicey: And not only were the curses relatively innocuous, the act of stepping on Draco and Goyle was hardly a "stomp." The passage goes as follows: *************** "Thought we'd see what those three were up to," said Fred matter-of-factly, stepping on Goyle and into the compartment. He had his wand out, and so did George, who was careful to tread on Malfoy as he followed Fred inside. *************** There's no indication here that stepping on those guys was an act of violence. For an act to be violent, there must be an intent to cause real harm. You can step on *me*, a weakling Muggle, and not cause me any harm if you step in the right place (between the shoulder blades). I've been stepped on in this way without being hurt by it. It looks as if the twins were expressing disdain for the anti-Trio, not trying to grind their flesh into the floor. It's funny--my brother just finished reading GoF and I quizzed him on this very issue: "The twins step on Draco & Co. on the train home: funny or disturbing? Why?" His response: "No harm, no foul." It's hard for me to get upset about the stepping upon for that reason--no one got hurt. The retaliation of the Trio and twins was no more harmful than the words that Malfoy was shouting. If it's disturbing at all, it's because it foreshadows the coming conflict, when there will be more than angry words and Jelly-Legs hexes. So can we *please* pretty please not call this the *stomp* anymore, because that's not what happened. The Prank was most surely a prank (as far as we can tell), but there's a world of difference between a step and a stomp. --Dicentra From jodel at aol.com Sat Feb 1 03:04:48 2003 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:04:48 EST Subject: The rise of the Mudbloods Message-ID: <13.176d8753.2b6c9350@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51324 Ffred ; >>I'm quoting from memory, so i may be wrong, but I think the separation was in the 1670s<< 1692. It's in the HP Schoolbooks. Ffred again; >>So am I right in thinking that you think that at the start of the seclusion, the MoM would have forbidden intermarriage? And that that's why there stopped being halfbloods?<< No, not directly. But that was the result. I think that in the days before the seclusion wizards lived among Muggles (certainly those who were of generally plebian rank, anyway.) and rather frequently married them, producing halfblood children who may or may not have turned out magical. Such mixed families, below a certain class line, were the norm. Once seclusion was established, however, there was no longer the easy mixing in and out between the two groups. (I suspect that there is much more mingling these days, despite continued seclusion, due to the need to make it possible to reach and train Muggle-borns than there was in the first part of the era.) In fact, I suspect that given that the seclusion was established for the security of all, any contact with Muggles may have been subject to draconian penalties. In this case the wizards who would prviously have chosen their partners from among their neighbors regardless of magical ability suddenly had a much narrower range of potential partners to choose from. This also affected the birthrate. -JOdel [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From srsiriusblack at aol.com Sat Feb 1 03:06:25 2003 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:06:25 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quirrel dead? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51325 In a message dated 31/01/2003 20:50:36 Eastern Standard Time, trondmm-hp4gu at crusaders.no writes: > OK, OK, he might be alive, but I can't begin to explain how disappointed > I'll be if he does turn up again. Particularly if he makes his sudden > reappearance as the villain of any of the remaining books. We've already > had two supposedly dead guys as the villain. Isn't it time to let the > living take over? but, you snipped the part out of being in St. Mungos... and being too crazy now to be a threat. I don't think he would come back in a villainous role. That would be too silly for JKR. But, think of all the people that Voldie did sent to St Mungos... It's a possibility.... I am hoping we get to go inside hospital and meet some of the people there. -snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From ezzie_mora at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 02:04:52 2003 From: ezzie_mora at yahoo.com (ezzie_mora ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 02:04:52 -0000 Subject: Not Slytherin, not Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51326 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "dicentra63 " wrote: > JKR is most definitely biased against House Slytherin, but it's > because Salazar Slytherin hates "Mudbloods" and wanted to impose that > value system on Hogwarts admissions policy. Good heavens, the man hid > a *basilisk* in the castle to wipe out "undesirables" centuries after > his death. His heir--Tom Riddle--mounted an enormous campaign to > "cleanse" the WW of "the wrong sort." I don't believe she's biased. I believe she has a plan (when does she ever not have a plan?) Up until now we have seen this view of House Slytherin - ambitious, haughty, and full of bigots. But as time has gone on, JKR has revealed (or rather, Harry has learned) that not all bigots are in Slytherin, and not all Slytherins are bad. For example, in Book 3 Harry learns that a Gryffindor was on Voldemort's side and in Book 4 learns that Snape is on Dumbledore's side. JKR seems to be moving us forward here. The books are told from Harry's perspective, and it's quite possible that when he was 11 his view of the world was very black and white. Now, as time progresses, he is learning that is not the case and perhaps the stories will begin to reflect this 'gray area' a bit more. If that is true, then it's hardly fair to blame JKR for her intentional exploration of this issue in an attempt to educate her young readers. She has made the books very black and white (good vs. evil) as Harry is young and seems to be expressing the fact that the world is not so straightforward as he gets older. - Heather (one more Snape fan) From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 03:50:02 2003 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 03:50:02 -0000 Subject: The Train Stomp vs. Dissin' The Slyths WAS Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: House points In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51327 Elkins:"In reference to canon, I would say that the forces of moral cynicism are represented in the text by Voldemort's "no good or evil, only power and the will to seek it." It is also reflected, IMO, in House Slytherin's emphasis on winning at all costs -- using *any* means to achieve ones ends." Agreed, but an enabling corollary is to believe everybody else is no better; and to point out any deviation from an absolute ideal as proof. Elkins:"The oppositional viewpoint, on the other hand, seems to me to be represented by Dumbledore's insistence on upholding moral standards of behavior -- lines in the sand, so to speak." Standards are essential. Ethics are essential. Harry is learning to share Dumbledore's wisdom in this, but I think Dumbledore would understand the Trio's actions on the train, especially since, as Dicey pointed out, they weren't deadly or even particularly violent, the magical equivalent of a fat lip. Elkins:"As for holding people up to somewhat "inhuman" standards of behavior, I think that the books do rather support this as a virtue. Lily did, after all, give her *life* to save her son. That's a pretty inhuman standard of conduct right there, isn't it?" No. Higher animals have that instict, and humans do. We hope. I would give my life for either of my daughters without thinking, and so would you, I'm sure. That's why we're so shocked and disturbed (I've been physically ill) when parents hurt their children; it's so *unnatural.* Elkins:"It does seem to me that in these books, spiritual temptation often takes the form of the desire for "payback." Snape in PoA is an excellent example. So is that jeering hysterical mob in the Pensieve scene in GoF." Excellent point, and well taken; but the response to the provocation wasn't a thought out plan of retribution. Now, if come next school year, the Trio plotted and carried out revenge against Draco and his goons, that would be problematic, and I don't expect it. The fundamental point I'm trying to make is that you have to give the Trio plus Forge a pass in the face of such a provocation. It's too much to ask otherwise. Jim From dicentra at xmission.com Sat Feb 1 03:50:27 2003 From: dicentra at xmission.com (dicentra63 ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 03:50:27 -0000 Subject: Not Slytherin, not Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51328 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "derannimer " wrote: > Oh dear. > > I don't think I've explained myself properly. > > See, in your original post, Dicentra, I got the distinct impression > that *you* thought that all the Slyths were bad. You wrote: > > >JKR hasn't marked the Slyths as bad just to prop up a shallow > >dualism--she's setting up the central conflict of the series: > >Muggle-lovers vs. Muggle-haters. Inclusion vs. Elitism. Acceptance > >vs. Genocide. Love vs. Bigotry. > > Which gave me the idea that you thought all Slyths were bad. Nah. What I was trying to point out in that post was that people who defend the Slyths [Oh, hi Eileen! Heh. Didn't see you there. :D] seem to forget that the Slyths are not just the token bad guys in this conflict, they're the representatives of a truly hateful value system. As David said, they're not functioning entirely as real people in the series--they've got symbolic baggage to lug around. Not long after we went the rounds with "Dissin the Slyths" (early last May) Pippin said something cool in 38807 about this very thing: ******************** Perspective in a novel, like perspective in art, is an illusion.... This illusion, like the illusion of perspective on a stage, can only work from certain points of view. If you leave the author's chosen viewpoint and go poking around backstage as it were, you will find the illusion spoiled. It is like looking at a backdrop up close.... [M]uch of Rowling's world is not realistically rendered after all. Certainly the Slytherins are not. The young Slytherins are one dimensional and most of their atmospheric and symbolic contribution to the Potterverse rests in this. However, Slytherin's artificiality has to remain imperceptible to the characters themselves.... Of course Dumbledore can not recognize this either.... He can't very well explain to them that they are part of a literary construct . Of course this means that Hogwarts is delightfully dysfunctional, another thing the characters can't be allowed to grasp without ruining the fun.... As long as the Slytherins are part of the background, their one dimensionality is appropriate to the story.... The moment I try to conceive of them as morally complicated, however, their situation makes no sense. Are they Slytherins because the Hat recognizes that at the age of eleven they are "criminally incurable"? OTOH, if they aren't hard cases, why treat them as if they were? I don't think Rowling can show us Dumbledore or Hermione or anyone else trying to redeem the Slytherins. The Slytherins aren't there to be redeemed. They aren't real enough for that. ******************** I also have to include Pippin's acronym, which she coined in 38486, just as a kind of neener neener: "Wanting the Slytherins to be more complex than they're shown to be is fine with me, but I wouldn't say Dumbledore's characterization is weak or misguided because it isn't conducive to a sentimental conception of Slytherin that JKR didn't put there. I'd call that S.L.O.P.P.Y.R.E.A.D.I.N.G. :-)(Slytherin-Lovers, Over Protecting Prideful Youngsters, Redefine Evil, Asserting Dumbledore Is No Good)" --Dicentra, who should be more mature but can't seem to pull it off From gingersnape1966 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 04:08:19 2003 From: gingersnape1966 at yahoo.com (gingersnape1966 ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 04:08:19 -0000 Subject: Passwords (was Re: Does Snape hate muggleborns?) In-Reply-To: <20030131174301.80315.qmail@web21006.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51329 Becky wrote: > Well, there is one indirect piece of evidence that Snape does not appreciate "muggle borns" very much. Remember when they went into the Slytherin common room to find out if Malfoy was the one opening the Chamber of Secrets? Well, the password was "Truebloods." This certainly has anti-muggle connotations and since Snape is the head of the house I cannot believe they would have passwords that he would object to. > Me: My book says "Pureblood". May be a translational thing, but same meaning. We are not directly told how the passwords are made, but in PoA, Neville makes Sir Cadogan give him all the passwords he was going to do that week. It also says that Cadogan "spent half his time challenging people to duels, and the rest thinking up ridiculously complicated passwords, which he changed at least twice a day." It would seem that the portraits themselves come up with the passwords, but that the head of the house knows them (McGonagall got in twice when she needed to). As for "pureblood", it would seem odd that a potentially offensive word or phrase would be used if it would offend anyone in that house. Not that purebood is in itself offensive, it is merely a description. But in context of a password, it would be like Gryffindor using "white people" when we know of 3 blacks in Gryffindor. Not that there's anything wrong or offensive with being white (or any colour, for that matter), just that it would be a slap in the face to those who weren't by making them say it to gain access to their own room, implying that they didn't belong there. In that context, can we assume that the bigotry, or at least the makeup, of Slytherin house is pureblood? Surely, someone would have spoken up had it offended them, or they would have had a private conversation with either Snape or the "bare, damp patch of stone wall" to which Draco spoke the password (would be like talking to a wall in either case)and it would have been changed. Or maybe Snape allowed it to keep his cover. Thoughts? Ginger From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 1 04:20:49 2003 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 04:20:49 -0000 Subject: Who told James about the Prank? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51330 Elkins wrote: > As it does seem to me that Peter's primary failing is his lack > of loyalty, a scenario in which Peter was loyal to *no one* in > regard to the Prank makes a good deal of structural sense. > > Personally, I don't think that Sirius told Peter about sending > Snape down to meet Lupin after the fact. I suspect that Peter > aided Sirius in the Prank in the first place. > > And *then* went running to James. Well, unless we think it is just some random student that overheard Sirius' plans (which honestly that is what I always thought until now), we *are* left with Elkins' Peter and Pip's Lily theories here. Sorry Pip. I love your mind. - but here, I am more prone to believe Elkins. **Though** I wonder something. I wonder if after Sirius believed Peter was honestly cowardly. I wonder if after James believed Peter has innate goodness. If it played out as Elkins said, then we have a Sirius that has to be quite annoyed with Peter. Peter played him. He turned on him. He was..."weak." Sirius, after James royally chewed him out for almost getting *Lupin* in trouble for murder, had to turn to Peter and think quite differently towards him. He saw how truly cowardly and scared he can be. How he runs and squeals. But in James' eyes, Peter did a "good" thing. Peter saved Snape's life, Lupin's secret, and Sirius' reputation. So really, to James, Peter would be someone to make a sound moral decision even when it could get him in trouble too. He did run to James and told him what they did. *Like* a man needing confession. To Sirius, Peter did not have the same...eh....(can I say this on the site?)...oh well...did not have the balls to stand up with his actions. If Peter did help Sirius' with the prank, which I must say Elkins I now firmly believe he did, then his yellow skin is really showing. I guess I ask...was that skin truly yellow at first or was it calculated even then? Melody who is extremely annoyed with yahoomort who keeps eating her posts consistently and without remorse. From maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 04:57:13 2003 From: maria_kirilenko at yahoo.com (Maria Kirilenko) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 20:57:13 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Characters you hate In-Reply-To: <20030131214850.42584.qmail@web20414.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20030201045713.89592.qmail@web40504.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51331 There are few characters that I'd like to actually meet in RL, and there are few whom I dislike reading. I simply *love* Gilderoy Lockhart sequences, as well as the ones with Rita Skeeter. "I understand. Natural to want a bit more once you've had that first taste - and I blame myself for giving you that, be cause it was bound to go to your head - but see here, young man, you can't start flying cars to try and get yourself noticed. Just calm down, all right? Plenty of time for all that when you're older. Yes, yes, I know what you're thinking! 'It's all right for him, he's an in ternationally famous wizard already!' But when I was twelve, I was just as much of a nobody as you are now. In fact, Id say I was even more of a nobody! I mean, a few people have heard of you, haven't they? All that business with He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named!" LOL! But I cannot stand Cho. As Elkins summarised (much better than I ever could ), I don't care for her narrative function. I don't see why she has to be there at all. But that's all IMO of course. Out of other characters... Amos Diggory immensely annoyed me up till his son Cedric "Spare" Diggory died. Dobby annoyed me in the beginning, but he's very cool in GoF. And I enjoyed watching Lucius in TCTMNBN much more than I enjoy reading about him, I'm sure. :) Maria --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From elfundeb at comcast.net Sat Feb 1 05:06:58 2003 From: elfundeb at comcast.net (elfundeb) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:06:58 -0500 Subject: Blame the Sorting Hat, not Slytherin References: Message-ID: <004101c2c9af$bfa1b1a0$723b3244@arlngt01.va.comcast.net> No: HPFGUIDX 51332 Derannimer: > > The Sorting Hat does not put the biased in Slytherin; it puts the > *ambitious* in Slytherin. Ambition is, canonically, the standard the > Hat uses to Sort the Slytherins. So why is it that all the ambitious > just happen to also be all the bigoted? Dicentra: the *first* definition [of ambition] in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary: "an ardent desire for rank, fame, or power." [snip] If you crave power for power's sake, and you're a wizard, you are going to acquire as much *magical* power as possible, and that means turning to the Dark Arts, the way Tom Riddle did. And if you're aspiring to be on the top of the wizard totem pole, there's no reason to consort with Muggles, because those powerless stiffs can't help you rise to the top. And if you want to be at the top, you have to define a bottom: might as well be the Muggle-born and Muggle-lovers. Why *anyone* would want to associate with or defend Muggles would be beyond you. Me: All this leaves me with the firm conviction that the house system is broken and can't be fixed. In fact, it may have never worked, if Salazar Slytherin never accepted the other founders' philosophy of educating all magical children: i.e., his belief that magical learning be kept within all-magic families did not stem, as Binns states, from the fact that "it was an age when magic was feared by common people, and witches and wizards suffered much prosecution" and therefore Slytherin "disliked taking students of Muggle parentage, believing them to be untrustworthy." Instead, as Dicentra suggests, he apparently had a hidden agenda to keep magical education, and the power that goes with it, to themselves. Yet (perhaps because the founders entered into a binding magical contract with the Sorting Hat), Salazar Slytherin's influence remains and his house, which McGonagall describes as having "its own noble history" before Harry's sorting, is like a cancer since its objective is the destruction of the vision on which the school still operates -- that of educating *all* magical children. The education Hogwarts provides is only partly one that teaches magical competence. Harry and his Gryffindor peers are receiving a valuable moral education as well. On the other hand, Dicentra suggests that the Slytherins are being tacitly encouraged to dabble in forbidden Dark Arts because that's where the power is. If so, there is an amoral overlay on the Slytherins' education, as the Slytherin philosophy is itself amoral. There's not much difference between what the Sorting Hat says of Slytherin and Voldemort's own philosophy that "there is no good and evil, only power and those too weak to seek it." Pippin suggests that Salazar's initial prejudice against Muggle-borns faded and "Riddle, with his "intimate friends" was responsible for re-introducing anti-Muggle prejudice into Slytherin House." I'd like to believe it, but that doesn't quite make sense to me. If the Sorting Hat is, year after year, telling students that the Slytherins are power-hungry and will use any means to achieve their ends, it's encouraging a prejudice of its own. It's reminding the other three-quarters of the school that the Slytherins are out to get them, which ultimately manifests in such overbroad statements as Hagrid's assertion that all of Voldemort's followers were Slytherin - which can only reinforce the Slytherins' own prejudices. I get the impression that the other three houses have been ganging up to root against Slytherin for centuries. Because they're told the day they arrive by the Sorting Hat that it's going to pick out the ones who are prepared to cheat to attain their goals and put them in Slytherin so everyone else will know who they are. And we don't know a single Slytherin who's truly fair, at least yet. Snape may not be evil, but wasn't the spark for this thread Snape's unfair treatment of the Gryffindors? Basically, I think the Sorting Hat plays God with 11-year-old minds, and I don't like it. I never thought much of predestination theories, but that seems to be exactly what's going on. Some students are selected for the Heaven of Gryffindor, conveniently located atop a castle tower; others are selected for the dark Hell of the Slytherin dungeons, whose temptations are *very* hard to resist. Perhaps, then, victory will only be achieved not when Voldemort is defeated but when the Sorting Hat itself is destroyed or Salazar is somehow banished from it, because it is a repository of Salazar Slytherin's amorality and seems to have been furthering Slytherin's ends for the last millennium. And people wonder why there are so many Snapefans out there? He's the one shining example for all those students sent to *hell* by the Sorting Hat. Snape's conversion must have carried with it a terrible personal cost, because one's house is, as McGonagall says, like one's family at Hogwarts. She has stacked the deck against the Slytherins, and asks them to pay a price to reject evil that Gryffindors don't have to pay. While I was writing, Dicentra quoted the following from an old post of Pippin's: If you leave the author's chosen viewpoint and go poking around backstage as it were, you will find the illusion spoiled. It is like looking at a backdrop up close.... [M]uch of Rowling's world is not realistically rendered after all. Certainly the Slytherins are not. The young Slytherins are one dimensional and most of their atmospheric and symbolic contribution to the Potterverse rests in this. However, Slytherin's artificiality has to remain imperceptible to the characters themselves.... Of course Dumbledore can not recognize this either.... He can't very well explain to them that they are part of a literary construct . I can only respond that I did not *choose* a different viewpoint from JKR and, like Dumbledore, I can't resolve my issues merely by reassuring myself that the Slytherins are *only* literary constructs. By having portrayed some of the students in such a manner that they can be analyzed as if they were real people (albeit with a narrative function), and by bringing all of the students together and subjecting the protagonist and his friends to the same school rituals as the others, the text allows the reader to view the Slytherins through the same lens as the Gryffindors. Asking me to take that lens away and accept the house that symbolizes the evils the protagonist must fight against as one dimensional, IMO, cheapens the evil and cheapens the message. Debbie who wants to know if Blaise Zabini is a *good* Slytherin [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Sunnylove0 at aol.com Sat Feb 1 06:09:31 2003 From: Sunnylove0 at aol.com (Sunnylove0 at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 01:09:31 EST Subject: Characters you Love/was:Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Characters you hate Message-ID: <12e.21cda7e3.2b6cbe9b@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51333 The characters you hate thread has been very interesting (I agree wholeheartedly with the nomination for Lockhart, the other characters I can take or leave, depending on the situation) But how about the flip side of the coin? Which HP character do you like most and why? I've personally had a thing for Dumbledore ever since "Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!" through to "Although over the summer, I did hear one about a troll, a leprechaun and a hag who all go into a bar..." The Queen of Serpents (who while a firm believer in MD, agrees wholeheartedly that Dumbledore is not perfect and that Slytherin house did get screwed in PS/SS, and who of course loves Snape too, for reasons she will get into eventually) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From the.gremlin at verizon.net Sat Feb 1 06:28:53 2003 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (the.gremlin at verizon.net) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 0:28:53 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Slytherin's winning streak (was; House Points and Dumbledore) Message-ID: <20030201062853.VLCW23484.out001.verizon.net@[127.0.0.1]> No: HPFGUIDX 51334 JOdel wrote: "Slytherin had been on a winning streak, taking the House Cup for the past six years. Right up to Harry's arrival at Hogwarts. And probably the Quidditich Cup as well. (Harry was immediately informed that Gryffandor had't won the QC since Charlie was on the team, seven years ago.)" Actually, Slytherin *has* won the Quidditch Cup for the past seven years in PoA: "And Potter--*do* try and win, won't you? Or we'll be out of the running for the eighth year in a row, as Professor Snape was kind enough to remind me only last night..." (US Paperback, p. 248). Gryffendor(sp?) has won the House Cup since Harry's first year. They just haven't won the Quidditch Cup. -Acire, who wants to know what she has to do to be a L.O.O.N., and is sorry if she has overstepped her boundaries and quoted something wrongly. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From belleps at october.com Sat Feb 1 06:23:01 2003 From: belleps at october.com (Beth) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 00:23:01 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Favorite Lines; Defining Lines In-Reply-To: <1043631643.2962.6091.m10@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.0.20030131235713.009fb910@pop.cox-internet.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51335 Lilac has my favorite line as her sig: ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* "Professor, can you show me that blocking thing again?" Lockhart cuffed Harry merrily on the shoulder. "Just do what I did, Harry!" "What, drop my wand?" --Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* Priceless. I also like, "I'll be in my room, making no noise and pretending that I don't exist." (Possibly paraphrased; I don't have the book here.) "Nice socks, Potter." Mad-Eye Moody in GoF. And, of course, "Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!" I've also thought about character-defining lines, or lines that show the characters stepping over a boundary that isn't easy for them to cross. I've only considered PS/SS so far, and the three main characters: Hermione: "Please, Professor McGonagall -- they were looking for me." Taking the blame for the troll incident was OOC for Hermione up to that point, but she knows that she owes the boys. They DID come looking for her when they could have gone straight to the common room. She does the right thing in helping them get out of trouble, even though she's lying to do it. And losing some of the teachers' goodwill must be very painful for her. But she still does the right thing, not the easy thing. Ron: He stepped forward, and the white queen pounced. Ron has always wanted to be the bravest, the hero, first at something, anything. Yet here he realizes that he has to be the sacrifice so that Harry can go on to the end of the quest. He knows it will be painful, both physically and emotionally, but he still does the right thing, rather than the easy thing. I think that Ron probably had choices earlier in the match that would have won him the game by sacrificing Harry, or possibly Hermione. But he chooses to sacrifice himself instead and let Harry take the glory. Harry: "I think I can tell who the wrong sort are for myself, thanks," he said coolly. Harry is starting over, finally without Dudley. He may not particularly like Draco, but he's gotten the impression that he's got status, he's probably got money, he's probably got influence in this brand new world he's entering. Being Draco's friend could get him places, and Draco is offering him his friendship and guidance. And all he has to do is deny Ron a place in his life. He's just met Ron -- he doesn't really owe him anything at this point. But Ron and Harry have bonded, Ron seems nice, his family seems nice, and Draco is a snob who's shown his prejudice against both Ron and Hagrid. It's not easy to be the new kid in town and place yourself firmly in opposition to someone with high status and influence. But Harry does it. He does the right thing, not the easy thing. They don't always pass the test, but they pass often enough on the important issues that these kids will go far. bel From the.gremlin at verizon.net Sat Feb 1 06:33:08 2003 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (the.gremlin at verizon.net) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 0:33:08 -0600 Subject: Characters you Love/was:Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Characters you hate Message-ID: <20030201063308.VLHU23484.out001.verizon.net@[127.0.0.1]> No: HPFGUIDX 51336 Sunnylove0 wrote: "But how about the flip side of the coin? Which HP character do you like most and why?" Snape. Always Snape. Umm, I'm not sure why I love him. He's very smart, and I find him attractive...sometimes. Well, not completely attractive. I think some women have that "Oh, I'll be the one to get him into a good mood and change him," and I think that may be part of why I like him...though I like him the way he is. I prefer the adult characters to the child ones, but lately I've taken an interest in Draco...I was he was a little more 3-dimensional though. I'm looking forward to finding out more about him. -Acire, who is wondering if this thread is off-topic. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From the.gremlin at verizon.net Sat Feb 1 06:35:49 2003 From: the.gremlin at verizon.net (the.gremlin at verizon.net) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 0:35:49 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Favorite Lines; Defining Lines Message-ID: <20030201063549.VLMC23484.out001.verizon.net@[127.0.0.1]> No: HPFGUIDX 51337 "So sorry--dozed off--what have I missed?" That's my sig on another e-mail address (I have 5). I also like Snape's opening speech. That quote may be the one from the CTMNBN, not from the book, though the same thing's in the book. -Acire, who is still wondering if this topic is...off-topic. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From IAmLordCassandra at aol.com Sat Feb 1 06:39:46 2003 From: IAmLordCassandra at aol.com (IAmLordCassandra at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 01:39:46 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Favorite Lines; Defining Lines Message-ID: <179.15789c57.2b6cc5b2@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51338 My favourite 'line' isn't really something that's said, but something that's done... ' "So that's why Snape doesn't like you," said Harry slowly, "because he thought you were in on the joke?" "That's right," sneered a cold voice from the wall behind Lupin. Severus Snape was pulling off the Invisibility Cloak, his wand pointing directly at Lupin. Hermione screamed. Black leapt to his feet. Harry felt as though he'd received a huge electric shock. ' Everytime I picture this scene I smile ^^ ~Cassie~ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com Sat Feb 1 06:55:24 2003 From: Arcum_Dagsson at celticwind.zzn.com (arcum42 ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 06:55:24 -0000 Subject: Who told James about the Prank? WAS: Re: Harry HAS Two Parents In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51339 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "ssk7882 " wrote: > Who tipped James off about the Prank? > Personally, I don't think that Sirius told Peter about sending > Snape down to meet Lupin after the fact. I suspect that Peter > aided Sirius in the Prank in the first place. > > And *then* went running to James. Interesting idea. I do wonder about his motives, though. He may already have been in process of joining Voldemort's side at the time. How about this? He helps Sirius out with the prank, perhaps even sparks the idea, thinking he'll take Sirus *and* Remus out along with Severus, then gleefully tells a Death Eater friend of his. He then is told that Snape is being looked at for possible recruitment, (or even that he currently is a Death Eater, perhaps in Voldie's inner circle) and runs to James to bail himself out with Voldemort... From srsiriusblack at aol.com Sat Feb 1 07:49:43 2003 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 02:49:43 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Characters you hate Message-ID: <1ee.c094fb.2b6cd617@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51340 I have endeavoured for a while now not to be involved in this conversation thread as I so much dislike the word 'hate', but now... I just cannot... There are many characters whom I LOVE and adore... quick list- and I don't really feel the need to back this up with much as my previous posts show clear favouritism;) Sirius-for so many reasons other than oh-so-sexy Lupin Snape- and YES he is sexy. Hermione- I was just like her in my youth Gred and Forge- I just adore them Ron Neville McGonagall Hagrid- who although many think will die is so very dear to my heart and I will cry ( makes girly face) and of course Dumbledore The characters I dislike most are as follows: Harry. and not for the reasons already named as I do not think he is self centred or egotistical. I actually do not like Harry because he is the least mysterious to me and his actions are always something which I feel I could calculate- as we know him best. Percy- I go back to my evil!percy posts. and Amos Diggory who I agree with a few others on shows no real emotion. and lest forget Lucius and Draco--- but again I refer to my Draco makes good post. The fact that the book illicit a reaction of dislike, disdain, disgust, or as it is 'put' here hate only says to me that JKR is doing a fine job... -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From snorth at ucla.edu Sat Feb 1 07:50:55 2003 From: snorth at ucla.edu (Scott ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 07:50:55 -0000 Subject: Characters you Love/hate and some other stuff In-Reply-To: <12e.21cda7e3.2b6cbe9b@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51341 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Sunnylove0 at a... wrote: > The characters you hate thread has been very interesting (I agree > wholeheartedly with the nomination for Lockhart, the other characters I can > take or leave, depending on the situation) > > But how about the flip side of the coin? Which HP character do you like most > and why? > Wow, there were a lot of great posts today while I was at work; I wanted to respond to a lot of them, but I decided that I would just be better off playing Sim City 4 before I drove back to my hometown from my Apartment. (and man, I suck at it; I'm just not a micro- manager) So I'll start off by responding to this post, and then mention any random thing that happens to pop into my head. *grins* So, what characters do I love? Well, of course, Harry has to top the list. To be honest, these recent posts of people professing their undying hatred of Harry scare the hell out of me. I hope to never meet these people in real life, for fear of what they'd do to me... ;) I really relate with Harry, which is probably why I enjoy the series so much in the first place (well, it's a very fun read, too). I think I've read other literature that was just more profound, more adult, with worlds more intricately built-- but I usually just don't connect with the protagonist. Harry just really reminds me of myself in high school. Not the 'savior' aspect, but just the regular teen stuff that Harry goes through. (I say myself in high school, because I'd like to think that I've matured a great deal over the last several years; of course, I'm sure plenty of people would tell me I still have a ways to go. They wouldn't be wrong. *grins*) Also, I like Harry because he sees what needs to be done, and he does it. Some people tend to view this as a flaw; I don't know why. And of course, I love Dumbledore- he plays the Gandalf-esque role as both an omnipotent guardian, and benevolent grandfatherly type. Except, where as Gandalf seemed more like some kind of divine avatar out to save the world, Dumbledore has proven that he is human; he is not infallible. (I still think people blow the end of PS/SS out of proportion, but I respect that some people may think that Dumbledore is guilty of horrible injustice; personally, I always just counted it as Dumbledore being overly enthusiastic in his praise of the Trio's (and Neville's) successes) And of course, I love Hermione. (the only real reasons I tend to SHIP H/Hr [hey, no SHIPping posts recently!] is because a) I relate to Harry, and b) the brainy, assertive girls are the sexiest.) I also find Snape to be a profoundly interesting character, even if I don't particularly like him. A possibility regarding Snape's past occurred to me. I know Snape's defenders always point out that he chose the side of good, and put himself at risk by choosing good over evil. I wonder if it was that simple. Perhaps, while still on the side of Voldemort, Snape revelled in his evil; he tortured, he murdered, and he thought it was great fun. But what if he went too far? What if his actions lead to the death of someone he really cared about (not necessarily Lily! Though I'm not adverse to LOLLIPOPS or whatever you guys call that theory). What if this tragedy is why he risked his own life for the side of good- atonement. I know this probably is not a new idea (Far from it, undoubtedly)-- but something tells me that Snape did not choose the side of good simply because it was 'the right thing to do.' As for characters I hate: none, really. I find Draco profoundly annoying. However, you do NOT know what it's like to hate characters until you read all 10 books in The Wheel of Time series. I swear, I hate multiple characters from that series with the fury of a thousand suns. Er, so anyway- Draco: I could hold with people's arguments that he's just a kid who's been beaten into submission by his father- horrid upbringing and all that. However, if that's the case, then why is Harry not an arrogant bully who revels in pushing people around? Just something to think about. (I'm shooting myself in the foot, but I would assume the natural argument to this is that Harry loathes the Dursleys; Draco looks up to his father. Still, I don't think that accounts for everything.) Re: the Train Stomp! I don't see what the fuss is. It was mentioned that no real harm was done- and I still think Draco got off lightly. When he rejoiced in Cedric's death (Cedric, JKR's Galahad, for the love of jeebus), and threatens the trio, he crosses the line from arrogant bully to actual evil. Who knows; that could have been his first step down the path of darkness (I feel like Yoda saying that). There's been some discussion about the evils of vengeance; that seeking vengeance is some sort of dark character aspect. I find the modern view of vengeance interesting, when one looks at vengeange in the eyes of the Greeks. To the Greeks, vengeance was a noble pursuit; it was upholding one's honor, and whole wars were started out of a desire for retribution (both Persian Wars, actually, were wars of vengeance). Vengeance was something that 'Real Men' sought at all costs. I don't necessarily hold with this view. I don't necessarily hold with Ghandi's "An Eye for an Eye blinds the world," either. Re: Eileen and Slytherin Eileen, I almost didn't think it was possible, but I do feel some empathy for Slytherin after reading your post, even though every Slytherin we know of is a jerk. I really do hope that JKR introduces us to Slytherins who aren't reprobates. However, that brings up questions. We all know the Sorting Hat thought Harry would have made a good Slytherin. So it wouldn't be a stretch to say there are decent Slytherins. The only problem I see there- is this because Harry really would have made a good Slytherin, or because of his relation with Voldemort; if Harry did receive his ability to speak Parseltongue from Voldemort, isn't it possible the Hat senses some of Voldie's residue on Harry? Harry does show Slytherin traits; he is resourceful, and he seems to see rules as a convenience. I wonder if this is a defining trait of Slytherins; Harry breaks the rules, but he doesn't do it at other peoples' expense. Sure, he often breaks the rules for the sake of fun-- his excursions into Hogsmeade being the prime example. But most of the time, it's for some greater good- transporting Norbert, searching for clues, etc. It's not for his own personal advancement, and he's not really hurting others, per se (sure, he's cursed the moron!trio, and he and Ron drugged Crabbengoyle in CoS, but that particular instance was a necessary evil to try and solve the Case of the Heir of Slytherin... sounds like a Scooby Doo episode). I think the best example of why Harry is a true Gryffindor, and not a misplaced Slytherin comes in GoF. Having learned about the first task, and knowing that Fleur and Krum would know of it, he lets Cedric in on it; I could be wrong, but I doubt that any Slytherin, even a "Not Jerk" Slytherin would have done the same thing. That's just not what Slytherin's about. In the second task, Harry tries to save all 4 'hostages.' Showing off his 'moral fiber.' I can't say for certain that any Slytherin would have done the same (even if they took the merpeople's song seriously). And of course, in the third task, he helps Cedric out more than once, and offers to let him take the Triwizard Cup. Then of course, there's the whole issue with the winnings. To me, the defining characteristic of a Slytherin is the single minded pursuit of one's goals- and the ends justify the means. So that's not to say that the whole lot is evil, or even unpleasant. To me, it just means that they're not quite as likely to be friendly, sociable people. And yes, I have to say, I dig Green and Silver far more than Red and Yellow, despite seeing myself as a Gryffindor. My high school colors were Green and white/silver. And it absolutely PAINS me that Gryffindor's colors are Red and Yellow. If I had a time machine, first I'd head into the future, make some cash, and buy books 5-7. However, after that, I'd search out JKR before she wrote PS/SS and beg her to make Gryffindor's colors Blue and Gold; anything but Red and Yellow. I have a Gryffindor scarf, and I can't really wear it on campus, for fear of getting beaten to death (and it's like 85 degrees in SoCal right now; poor saps on the East coast ;) For people who aren't big on Cali schools, UCLA's colors are Blue and Gold- our hated crosstown rivals, the University of Spoiled Children,, use "Cardinal," ie red and gold. Lastly, when I asked if Snape supporters were Wormtongue fans, I was honestly curious; I wasn't insuating that people who are Pro- Snape/Slytherin are creepy people who revel in evil. Really. ;) Okay, that was a lot. When I signed onto this list, I expected to discuss predictions and speculation as to what happens in future books- not full blown philosophy discussions. I'm just a simple Math Major, dang it! Math is so clear cut- you're either right, or wrong, and you're not generally judged on either (well, not morally, heh). *sighs* -Scott From enchanted at pacbell.net Sat Feb 1 03:52:33 2003 From: enchanted at pacbell.net (Enchanted) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 19:52:33 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Hermione's parents References: Message-ID: <01af01c2c9a5$5b120690$3b0afea9@family> No: HPFGUIDX 51342 I've read somewhere that Harry and Ron do visit the Grangers in the next book, but it might just be a rumor. I also really like Hermione. In the first book she was a pest, but I grew to love her character because she is a strong female presence and she doesn't take any flack from anyone. ----- Original Message ----- From: GRACE701 I would like to know more about Hermione's parents besides the fact that they are Muggles and dentists. Could it be because of them Hermione is an over-achiever, over-studious; an eccentrist period? (Mind you she's my favorite character.) It would also be interesting to have Harry and Ron visit her. Ron can finally see how Muggles live and we can see the disasters that may occur from this. "Enchanted" [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From runningbecky2002 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 06:36:12 2003 From: runningbecky2002 at yahoo.com (Becky Walkden) Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 22:36:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Passwords (was Re: Does Snape hate muggleborns?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030201063612.79774.qmail@web21008.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51343 "gingersnape1966 " wrote: Becky wrote: > Well, there is one indirect piece of evidence that Snape does not appreciate "muggle borns" very much. Remember when they went into the Slytherin common room to find out if Malfoy was the one opening the Chamber of Secrets? Well, the password was "Truebloods." This certainly has anti-muggle connotations and since Snape is the head of the house I cannot believe they would have passwords that he would object to. > ginger said: My book says "Pureblood". May be a translational thing, but same meaning. Me: My bad. I was writing that from memory. Pureblood is what I meant to say although I guess it does indeed have the same meaning here. Your right that we don't know exactly how the passwords are chosen but it cannot be a coincidence that the Slytherine house happened to have THAT password. Huggs Becky --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From vojoca at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 07:56:57 2003 From: vojoca at yahoo.com (vojoca ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 07:56:57 -0000 Subject: The Imperio Curse Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51344 *Removes Invisibility Cloak* Hello everyone! I've been lurking for some time now, just happy with reading everyone's thoughts on, well - *everything* hehehe =) and I've never felt the need to post....until now. Ever since the first time I read the Harry Potter series, mainly GOF, there has been this itch that would just not go away. And it's gotten worse since I found out that the fifth book will be released *pauses and does a little happy dance while clapping her hands* Before I post about this itch that is very rapidly turning into a theory (or, as I very affectionally call it, "the thing that's driving me absolutely bonkers"), I'd like to ask all of you these questions, and I welcome any and all responses, be it negative or positive. Actually, I *beg* all of you to please, please please give me any/all your thoughts. PLEASE. And the question is....*drum roll* Re: The Imperio Curse 1. It is clear that It is one of the Three Unforgivable Curses. But are there any other ways to have a person under your control? I haven't come across any canon evidence to say otherwise, other than the fact that there is a bunch of "Dark Magic" that no-one in the books wants to share with me (hmph.) and the Veritaserum and any other truth potion that may be out there. (I've put veritaserum in a somewhat "control" category because the way I understood it from GOF is that when you take it, you're under the control of the person asking questions, because well, as we've all read Crouch do it, he spilled his guts to Dumbledore and the rest. I *don't* think he would have given all that info if he were his normal self, do you?) 2. Does the person who is casting the curse have to be in the presence of the person getting hit by the curse? Or can the person cast the curse from a different location, a la the Accio firebolt that Harry did on the first task? Focus your mind, entirely and absolutely...and....VOILA! 3. If it is indeed possible to do the Curse on someone who's not present, would the effect of the curse be less....effective? Like not have as much control over the victim as if the caster cursed him when they're together. 4. Are there different "levels" of the Imperio? If so, do these levels relate to a)the "power" or ability of the witch/wizard that casts it? (for example, would Voldy's Imperio allow him to have a higher level of control over his victim than someone like, say, Percy, who just got out of school and has not had as much practice? And I am in NO WAY implying that Percy would do that.) b)The distance between the caster and the victim when the victim is no longer in the presence of the caster c)The health of the caster (not death - Health meaning if the caster gets sick or is weakened somehow)? So there. My questions. I've tried to answer these myself, but the only thing I've found (so far) is from the Lexicon website, which is: IMPERIO - One of the "Unforgivable Curses" this spell causes the victim to be completely under the command of the caster, who can make them do anything they wish. And also the stuff about everyone snapping out of it when Voldy lost his power. So there are my questions. Maybe I missed something in the books or something. Now that I look at my questions in writing, I'm starting to realize how out in left field I'm sounding...But there's just this thing...that's been BOTHERING me so much!!! So please, put me out of my misery. =p And when I finally get my thoughts together, I'll put it here for the world to disect. vojoca -who has stopped doing the happy dance and shouting "IT'S COMING!" about the arrival of book five, and is now in the whiny baby stage and shouting "but it's still so farrrrrrrrr....the time's going by so sloooowwwwwwwwwwww!!!!!" -and who has literally been losing sleep over this itch that just won't go away and thinks that she is now officially absolutely losing her mind. From dianasdolls at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 11:25:01 2003 From: dianasdolls at yahoo.com (Diana Lucas) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 03:25:01 -0800 (PST) Subject: The Evil Trio deserved hexes [was The Train Stomp vs. Dumbledore, etc.] In-Reply-To: <1044076172.5448.1358.m7@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <20030201112501.83000.qmail@web40206.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51345 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Jim Ferer " wrote: > Tarnished? After what Draco and his cronies said? No way. They showed admirable restraint. dumbledore11214 replied: >Absolutely, when I was reading this scene, I was cheering the Trio and Fred and George almost without reservations. That was not a teacher turning Draco into ferret, Draco and his cronies provoked the Trio and got what they deserved, in my opinion. (Well, maybe walking over them was a little too much). Trio and twins only reacted to provocation. It does not make them evil in my book. Jim Ferrer wrote: > Take it down to the scene on the train. I can't imagine 99.99999% of the people on Earth being able to endure that provocation - gloating over the murder of a good person? It's monstrous, and unquestionably > "fighting words," (a legally recognized concept of words so provocative a reasonable person can't be expected to endure them). dumbledore11214 replied: >I know I would not be able to keep silence, if provoked like that. Now me: I agree with Jim and dumbledore11214. Not only was Draco gloating about the horrible, wasteful death of Cedric, Draco was actually *threatening* to kill Harry, Hermione and basically every other other decent person [read non-Voldemort supporter] in the WW. [From GoF, page 729 American hardback edition]: "You've picked the losing side, Potter! I warned you! I told you you ought to choose your company more carefully, remember? When we met on the train, first day at Hogwarts? I told you not to hang around with riffraff like this!" He jerked his head at Ron and Hermione. "Too late now, Potter! They'll be the first to go, now the Dark Lord's back! Mudbloods and Muggle-lovers first! Well -second -Diggory was the f-" [Draco, Crabbe and Goyle get hexed.] Don't forget that shortly before this exchange on the train, Harry had been painfully tortured by Voldemort while Draco's, Crabbe's and Goyle's fathers watched! Not only did those boys' fathers *not* help [never expected them to, of course] Harry when Voldemort tortured and then tried to kill him, they laughed at Harry's pain and suffering! I would say that Malfoy's father must told Draco at least some of what happened in the cemetary that night Voldemort regained his body. And I'm sure Draco greatly enjoyed the tales of Harry suffering under the Cruciatus Curse. Goyle's and Crabbe's fathers might have told them as well. With the emnity between Malfoy and Harry this high, I wonder what will happen at Harry's fifth year at Hogwarts in OotP? I mean, Harry's hatred for Draco has grown way beyond the simple desire to show up a bigoted, cruel braggart. Since Harry escaped Voldemort's clutches yet again and Voldie sorely wants him dead, how safe will Harry be from Malfoy, Crabbe and Goyle at Hogwarts? I mean Malfoy and the other Slytherins may have only wanted to injure Harry in PoA to keep him from playing when the Quidditch Cup was on the line, but now Draco and company might try to please their fathers and Voldemort by killing Harry for them. They would have access to Harry at Hogwarts, after all. And I can't see the Evil Trio just forgiving and forgetting about those hexes on the train in GoF, either. Malfoy will definitely want a nasty revenge against Harry and his friends for those tentacles. ;) I don't think those hexes and being trod upon was punishment enough for the Evil Trio, actually. If someone threatened to kill me [actually "my father and his evil Dark Lord boss will kill you and all your friends asap"], I would be inclined to throw at them the strongest, most dreadful curse I could think of - the Evil Trio got off easy, IMHO. Diana theplaidtoad __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From Ali at zymurgy.org Sat Feb 1 11:52:27 2003 From: Ali at zymurgy.org (Ali ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 11:52:27 -0000 Subject: Re Dishing the Slytherins Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51346 Coming into the discussion, a bit late... I have to admit that until I read people's objections to Dumbledore's treatment of the Slytherins in PS/SS, it simply hadn't occurred to me that the point redistribution was anything other than fair. Since the time this issue first surfaced, I still believe that the point redistribution was fair but struggle more over the methodology. I agree with Catherine that the end of term speech was the first opportunity that Dumbledore had had to publicly praise Harry, and the only way to prevent unfair point awarding/confiscating taking place. Until 24 hours before the feast, Harry's life might still have been in the balance and to give points out prior to his return to consciousness would have seemed a bit advanced. Arguably, the points could have been awarded in that 24 hours, but waiting until Harry was well enough to be part of the school again, emphasised the significance of the award. In terms of "dishing the Slytherins", I see Dumbledore as righting the balance. 3 of the kids who were awarded points in the feast were the same three who had practically been sent to Coventry by their fellow students for their midnight wanderings. These kids were really made to suffer, and whilst their sufferings can be blamed on their own stupidity, their loss of 150 points seemed patently unjust in comparison with Draco who lost only 20 points. The WW seems quite harsh; people are blamed, people rarely seem to be forgiven. I believe that Dumbledore was very publically returning the 3 who had previously been wrongly ostracised. These kids who were prepared to risk all for people who wouldn't give them the time of day . The Slytherins were very quick to gloat, but ended up with egg all over their faces. I believe that the Slytherins are being rewarded for their gloating, a well earned put-down. Given their somewhat Machiavellian attitude, I don't think that they could be too critical of Dumbledore's methods. I do agree that this was a very hard way to do it, and would hardly help the "them v. us" culture. Dumbledore was giving them a dose of their own medicine. In terms of whether the House Cup was decided prior to the speech, we can only see what the students themselves saw, Slytherin had won. Possibly, points would be awarded until the last minute, but Slytherin's lead made any ordinary last minute changes irrelevant. I don't believe that Dumbledore was deliberately "Dishing the Slytherins", but I also don't think that either he, or the Slytherins themselves would have objected to his methodology. I think he was using their rules. Ali From sevothtarte at gmx.net Sat Feb 1 11:54:32 2003 From: sevothtarte at gmx.net (Torsten) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 12:54:32 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Passwords (was Re: Does Snape hate muggleborns?) In-Reply-To: <20030201063612.79774.qmail@web21008.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <94TOYW71QKIEA5ZU2UHG73SNEDIDTNB.3e3bb578@tk> No: HPFGUIDX 51347 Becky: >Me: My bad. I was writing that from memory. Pureblood is what I meant to say >although I guess it does indeed have the same meaning here. Your right that we don't >know exactly how the passwords are chosen but it cannot be a coincidence that the >Slytherine house happened to have THAT password. Whoever (or whatever) chose the password might just have picked a term fitting current circumstances. There certainly were discussions going on everywhere in the school at this time about the Chamber, Salazar, Mudbloods ... It wouldn't be surprising if at the time of the Quidditch final one common room had a Quidditch term as password, might be the same here, without any actual 'evil' intent. -Torsten From catlady at wicca.net Sat Feb 1 12:00:10 2003 From: catlady at wicca.net (Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 12:00:10 -0000 Subject: the race thread/Weasley names/Mundungus Fletcher/WWII and Wizards Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51348 On the who-reads-all-the-posts question, I do (reading them on the website, in one huge orgy of catching up) but it's 3.30AM and I have to take a nap before I go on to the next 400 posts. So I may be repeating something someone has already said that I haven't gotten to yet. In the "post-colonialism" thread, Ebony used the phrase "African- descended folks". In paleontology, ALL humans are African-descended. The only question is whether our most recent common ancestor was a Homo sapiens in Africa only 200,000 years ago, a Homo sapiens in Africa longer ago than that, or a Homo erectus something like a million years ago. Carolyn wrote: << Has anyone considered Bill's full name to be Bilius? >> Andrea wrote: << However, I use that same evidence to submit that Fred is NOT named Frederick, since Dumbledore refers to the twins simply as "Misters Fred and George Weasley". I don't see any reason to assume the "full names" of the other Weasleys aren't simply Bill, Charlie, Percy, and Ginny. (Although I think I like Perseus for Percy -- very classical. :) I still don't think that's it, though.) >> Carolyn! Andrea! You ladies are geniusses! I have believed for years that Bill Weasley was named after his late uncle Bilius. (Altho' I might somehow have been influenced by the Askhenazi Jewish tradition of naming children after dead relatives.) And that Charlie, Percy, Fred, and George are named Charlie, Percy, Fred, and George. Altho' I like to think that Ginny is named something like Genevere. Percy being named Perseus would Mean Something in that alternate universe in which it Means Something that 'Severus Snape' is an anagram of 'Perseus Evans'.... that Lily's mum was Arthur's sister and both of them named a son after their father Perseus (the Perseus who was Lily's brother changed his name) .... Tzvi wrote: << [Mundungus Fletcher] had been raided by the Misuse of Muggle Artifacts department of the MoM. >> It's in CoS, when Arthur comes home and finds Harry at the Burrow: "What a night," he mumbled, groping for the teapot as they all sat down around him. "Nine raids. Nine! And old Mundungus Fletcher tried to put a hex on me when I had my back turned ...... " That has never seemed to me to mean that Mundungus was one of the people being raided; rather it seems to me that he is a Ministry employee or hanger-on who either went along with the raiding team or was in Arthur's office when Arthur came back between raids to do the paperwork. An UNHELPFUL employee or hanger-on, letting his practical jokes (hexes) interferes with people who are trying to do their WORK. JOdel wrote: << The WW may not even have *been* at war during Riddle's school days. >> This is something I have wondered a lot about lately. Even if the wizarding folk don't go to Muggle wars, that War came to them: Does the magic that hides Diagon Alley and Platform 9 3/4 from Muggles also protect them from bombs dropped from airplanes? Could wizards who lived in London Charm their houses to make all bombs and shrapnel go somewhere else? Suppose they lived in flats? (DO wizards ever live in flats?) I am so ignorant of history: were other places (besides London) Blitzed? They wouldn't have wanted to call attention to themselves by violating the black-out. How were they affected by food shortages and rationing? If the wizarding economy goes all the way down to having its own wizarding farms to supply its own food, they might have really cleaned up in the food black market. I think they would have wanted to defend their island from invasion, from self-interest if not from patriotism: it seems to me that being ruled by an Army of Occupation and a Gestapo would mean, at least, a LOT more eyes to conceal magic from. From lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 13:12:43 2003 From: lizgiz1980 at yahoo.com (lizgiz1980 ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 13:12:43 -0000 Subject: Too Many Acronyms In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51349 > Devika > >So I was wondering: is there some kind of all-inclusive list of > >these acronyms, complete with meanings, or should I just keep > >searching the archives for the first post in which they were > >introduced? > --- "Star Opal" answered http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPforGrownups/database? method=reportRows&tbl=13 239 Acronyms is one heck of a lot. It might even verge on being too darn many. From pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 1 13:49:05 2003 From: pipdowns at etchells0.demon.co.uk (bluesqueak ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 13:49:05 -0000 Subject: WWII and Wizards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51350 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Catlady (Rita Prince Winston) " wrote: > JOdel wrote: > > << The WW may not even have *been* at war during Riddle's school > days. >> > Catlady: > This is something I have wondered a lot about lately. Even if the > wizarding folk don't go to Muggle wars, that War came to them: > Does the magic that hides Diagon Alley and Platform 9 3/4 from > Muggles also protect them from bombs dropped from airplanes? Could > wizards who lived in London Charm their houses to make all bombs > and shrapnel go somewhere else? Suppose they lived in flats? (DO > wizards ever live in flats?) I am so ignorant of history: were > other places (besides London) Blitzed? Yes. Liverpool was hit very badly; so was Bristol, Manchester and Glasgow (I think). Other smaller places got hit if German intelligence thought there was important industry there. Most of the countryside was bomb-free unless a German bomber got lost (they had to drop their bombs *somewhere* to have the fuel to get back home). I think it's extremely difficult for non-Brits to appreciate just how *total* WW2 was in these islands. The outlying Channel Islands *were* invaded; major cities had huge swathes of destruction (the last bit of bomb damage in the City of London was finally built on in ... 1998. I played on bomb sites as a child in the 60's and 70's). Families were separated, food shortages (due to attacks on cargo ships) were only kept at bay by a system which rationed all meat, most fish, all sugars, all eggs, all sweets, butter, margarine, petrol... > Catlady: > They wouldn't have wanted to call attention to themselves by > violating the black-out. How were they affected by food shortages > and rationing? Wizards would have been hauled off to a muggle court if they constantly violated the black-out. There is a case of someone in WW2 who was fined for 'wasting food'. This turned out to be somebody who had been seen throwing stale bread crumbs to the birds... Having too much food would have been attention calling, as would having new clothes too often (clothes were rationed). Wizarding clothes in public would have been deeply suspicious. There were several panics about 'German spies parachuting in dressed as nuns' (nobody knows why 'nuns'). Unnecessary travel would have been a bit of a puzzle as well; priority was given to troops and cargo, so travelling by public transport was apparently a nightmare. Travelling by car was rare due to petrol rationing (unless you were in the RAF, and could sneak aircraft fuel). They may have had to relax the 'Platform 9 3/4 requirement', and allow kids to travel to Hogswarts by other means. King's Cross was right in the middle of the bomb zone. > If the wizarding economy goes all the way down to > having its own wizarding farms to supply its own food, they might > have really cleaned up in the food black market. In the countryside ancient pasturelands had to be ploughed up in the desperate effort to grow enough food (Britain hasn't been self- sufficient in food since the Industrial Revolution). Inspectors turned up regularly at farms to check exactly how many pigs, hens, cattle each farm had. Farmers suddenly found their labourers were called up (drafted) and had to replaced by female volunteers (the Land Army). Village schools were suddenly overcrowded by 'evacuees' (children taken away from the bombed cities to live with foster parents in safer places). It is inconceivable to me that the WW could have been *so* separate as to be unaffected by all this. At the least they would have had to add extra muggle repelling charms to wizarding farms to keep the Inspectors off. They would have had to be extra careful to wear muggle clothes in public. They would have had to hide the fact that they didn't need to ration food, and could travel freely and quickly. They would have had to explain why they didn't want to take muggle evacuees. Or maybe they didn't. WW2 may have been the start of 'the rise of the half blood' as wizarding families developed friendly relationships with their muggle foster kids and *their* relatives. Ironically, Hogwarts would have been fine, and may have been part of the reason Tom Riddle's orphanage was happy to let him go. Tom's letter *could* have arrived in 1939, the very year when the whole of London was frantically planning to evacuate children to safer areas. The thought that *one* boy, at least, already had a scholarship to some school in a safe, remote area of Scotland would have been a weight off the minds of the staff in charge. >I think they > would have wanted to defend their island from invasion, from self- > interest if not from patriotism: it seems to me that being ruled > by an Army of Occupation and a Gestapo would mean, at least, a LOT > more eyes to conceal magic from. There is a story, possibly apocryphal, that the British pagans in WW2 contributed to the war effort by planning and casting a white magic protective spell against invasion over Britain. This (legend says) was a massive, intensively planned effort involving every available coven working on the spell on the same night. Whether true or not, the story has appeared in fiction more than once. There's a book using it by Dennis Wheatley (can't remember the title) and strangely enough, it appears in the Disney film 'Bedknobs and Broomsticks'. So if JKR was thinking that the Wizarding World was *actively* involved in WW2, using their magical skills in the fight, there is already a legendary basis for that. Pip!Squeak From HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com Sat Feb 1 14:01:11 2003 From: HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com (HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com) Date: 1 Feb 2003 14:01:11 -0000 Subject: File - HPfGU.announcement-Nimbus.htm Message-ID: <1044108071.20770624.28640.m12@yahoogroups.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51351 An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Feb 1 15:25:50 2003 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:25:50 -0000 Subject: Slytherin's winning streak (was; House Points and Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: <20030201062853.VLCW23484.out001.verizon.net@[127.0.0.1]> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51352 Acire wrote: > Actually, Slytherin *has* won the Quidditch Cup for the past seven years in PoA: "And Potter--*do* try and win, won't you? Or we'll be out of the running for the eighth year in a row, as Professor Snape was kind enough to remind me only last night..." (US Paperback, p. 248). > You don't know that - that quote only states that *Gryffindor* has been eliminated from the cup competition the last eight years - the first seven because they didn't have an apropiate seeker, most probably, and the eighth because Harry was too hurt to play. Since there are three other teams and we know that the Slytherin team is not particularly good (until they got the Nimbus 2001, I mean), it is open to speculation who won those competitions. My money is that Ravenclaw must've won a few, at least. I think that if Slytherin had one all of them, Snape would've spelled it out by now. > Gryffendor(sp?) has won the House Cup since Harry's first year. They just haven't won the Quidditch Cup. > > -Acire, who wants to know what she has to do to be a L.O.O.N., and is sorry if she has overstepped her boundaries and quoted something wrongly. To be a LOON you have to be nominated and seconded, AFAIK. Two things, however, don't help: proposing yourself seems to be the worst form of bad manners and misspelling Gryffindor isn't going to raise sympathies. Besides, being a LOON is not easy - I myself must be close to being one, but after more than a year in the list I haven't yet been nominated. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From jferer at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 15:31:12 2003 From: jferer at yahoo.com (Jim Ferer ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:31:12 -0000 Subject: Wizards must stay secret: Was:: WWII and Wizards In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51355 Many thanks to Pip for the fascinating post. I've always believed that the wizard world would have - and still would - face serious resentment if it was revealed to the Muggle world at large. Why didn't the wizards win the war without so many deaths? Why doesn't Madame Pomfrey fix the National Health system? Why didn't the wizards prevent the attacks in New York? Why don't the wizards ___ _____ __________? It would be short step from that to the belief that the wizards manipulate the whole world behind the scenes to suit themselves, and from *there* to believing the wizards control banking, business, and government behind the scenes. Is all this starting to sound familiar? I believe that progression would be inevitable. So the wizard world has to stay secret and separate, sad to say. But if they need some Muggle money, I have a great idea. They could write books and make movies... Jim Ferer, who'd buy a round in the Leaky Cauldron From thomasmwall at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 15:37:56 2003 From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:37:56 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Favoritism in CoS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51356 I have really enjoyed reading all of the different persepectives regarding Dumbledore and the redistribution of house points and the end of PS/SS. And I also have enjoyed the way that many have defended his actions as "righting the proper balance" to paraphrase Ali's paraphrasing of that side of the debate. Whether or not I agree is different, but I can respect that people sincerely believe that Dumbledore was being fair. Recap: In PS/SS, HHR did stuff, and got 60/50/50 points respectively for the stuff they did. In CoS, Harry and Ron are awarded TWO-HUNDRED POINTS EACH. Okay. I would have been able to play along, I might have even been convinced that Dumbledore isn't unfair, no matter how tactless he may be. But if this doesn't prove that Dumbledore picks favorites, then... well, it completely proves that Dumbledore picks favorites, there's no question about it. ;-) WHAT did they do in the Chamber of Secrets to deserve two-hundred points each? 200 POINTS: Harry was *loyal.* Harry stabbed a Basilisk, and stabbed a book. FAWKES did all the really dangerous work... NOT TO MENTION giving Harry the strength (via song) to do the above stuff. 200 POINTS: Ron did NOTHING... he was just *there,* which means that Ron's complete lack of any action was worth more in Dumbledore's eyes than the actions of all four Gryffindors the previous year. AND not *only* did they get all the points, but they also both got Special Awards for Services to the School. Now, even if you endorse Dumbledore's decision to grant all those points at the end of PS/SS, personally overturning the results of the House Cup, I'd like to see how anyone can defend him for this. This is blatant favoritism. AND it's not canon, but my personal belief is that he gave the points for the loyalty. Which doubly proves the favoritism, 'cause the loyalty shown was to him. Harry and Ron did NOT deserve 200 points each for the events in the Chamber of Secrets. Special Awards, definitely. Some points, definitely. 400. No way. -Tom From Crunchy_Chocolate_Frog at hotmail.com Sat Feb 1 12:37:38 2003 From: Crunchy_Chocolate_Frog at hotmail.com (Crunchy Frog) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 12:37:38 +0000 Subject: Does Snape hate muggleborns? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51357 I think that it's difficult to see if Snape really dislikes muggle-borns. He's the Head of the House of Slytherin, he's also a (former) Death Eater and a spy for Dumbledore. He can't be too affectionate to HH&R if he has to keep faking that he is a good (?) Death Eater. That's also why he has to keep favoring the Slytherins. Draco, for instance, is in a perfect position to tip his father, and Voldemort of what Snape does, so if he starts displaying anything less than biased favoritism to his own house, the consequences might not be too desireable for him. Also, he's not a very fluffy nice guy to begin with. Also, he doesn't prevent her from going to the infirmary, and he doesn't deduct points for it. I don't think that he hates Harry all that much. That is the impression that I personally get, since the whole story is told from Harry's point-of-view. Sure, Snape hated James, but I don't think his hate extends to Harry. I think that that is just one of the excuses he has for why he isn't nicer to Harry. I think that he feels that Harry should be treated just like any other kid. Also, in Harry's first Potions class, he wastes almost no time in starting to teach. I'll bet anything that Harry will always remember what is to be got by adding "powdered root of asphodel to an infusion or wormwood", where a bezoar can be found and that monkshood, wolfsbane and aconite are the same thing. Crunchy Chocolate Frog (who just wrote her first post here and hopes that she did it right) + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + Mr. Hilton: Oh, we use only the finest baby frogs, dew-picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in the finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and sealed in a succulent, Swiss, quintuple-smooth, treble-milk chocolate envelope, and lovingly frosted with glucose. Inspector: That's as may be, but it's still a frog! Mr. Hilton: What else? Inspector: Well, don't you even take the bones out? Mr. Hilton: If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy, would it? ~"Crunchy Frog", Monty Python~ + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From jeanneblade at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 14:52:51 2003 From: jeanneblade at yahoo.com (If you cant figure it out, you are really stupid ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 14:52:51 -0000 Subject: Favorite Lines; Defining Lines In-Reply-To: <5.2.0.9.0.20030131235713.009fb910@pop.cox-internet.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51358 I have two personal favorites, one of which I use as my sig. My all time favouite is "I'm not puttin' 'em on. I like a healthy breeze 'round my privates, thanks." An obscure, nonimportant, inane line from GF that caught my attention. Probably because I was sixteen when I first read it. It's a classic. The second is "Have you gone mad? Are you a witch or not?" -Ron, SS. I just thought it was really funny, and I was upset that it was cut from the movie. --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, Beth wrote: > Lilac has my favorite line as her sig: > > ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > > "Professor, can you show me that blocking thing again?" > > Lockhart cuffed Harry merrily on the shoulder. "Just do what I did, Harry!" > > "What, drop my wand?" > > --Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets > > ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~* > > Priceless. > > I also like, "I'll be in my room, making no noise and pretending that I > don't exist." (Possibly paraphrased; I don't have the book here.) > > "Nice socks, Potter." Mad-Eye Moody in GoF. > > And, of course, > "Nitwit! Blubber! Oddment! Tweak!" > > > I've also thought about character-defining lines, or lines that show the > characters stepping over a boundary that isn't easy for them to cross. I've > only considered PS/SS so far, and the three main characters: > > Hermione: "Please, Professor McGonagall -- they were looking for me." > Taking the blame for the troll incident was OOC for Hermione up to that > point, but she knows that she owes the boys. They DID come looking for her > when they could have gone straight to the common room. She does the right > thing in helping them get out of trouble, even though she's lying to do it. > And losing some of the teachers' goodwill must be very painful for her. But > she still does the right thing, not the easy thing. > > Ron: He stepped forward, and the white queen pounced. > Ron has always wanted to be the bravest, the hero, first at something, > anything. Yet here he realizes that he has to be the sacrifice so that > Harry can go on to the end of the quest. He knows it will be painful, both > physically and emotionally, but he still does the right thing, rather than > the easy thing. I think that Ron probably had choices earlier in the match > that would have won him the game by sacrificing Harry, or possibly > Hermione. But he chooses to sacrifice himself instead and let Harry take > the glory. > > Harry: "I think I can tell who the wrong sort are for myself, thanks," he > said coolly. > Harry is starting over, finally without Dudley. He may not particularly > like Draco, but he's gotten the impression that he's got status, he's > probably got money, he's probably got influence in this brand new world > he's entering. Being Draco's friend could get him places, and Draco is > offering him his friendship and guidance. And all he has to do is deny Ron > a place in his life. He's just met Ron -- he doesn't really owe him > anything at this point. But Ron and Harry have bonded, Ron seems nice, his > family seems nice, and Draco is a snob who's shown his prejudice against > both Ron and Hagrid. It's not easy to be the new kid in town and place > yourself firmly in opposition to someone with high status and influence. > But Harry does it. He does the right thing, not the easy thing. > > They don't always pass the test, but they pass often enough on the > important issues that these kids will go far. > > bel From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Feb 1 16:00:02 2003 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 16:00:02 -0000 Subject: The Imperio Curse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51359 vojoca wrote: > Re: The Imperio Curse > > 1. It is clear that It is one of the Three Unforgivable Curses. But > are there any other ways to have a person under your control? I > haven't come across any canon evidence to say otherwise, other than > the fact that there is a bunch of "Dark Magic" that no-one in the > books wants to share with me (hmph.) and the Veritaserum and any > other truth potion that may be out there. (I've put veritaserum in a > somewhat "control" category because the way I understood it from GOF > is that when you take it, you're under the control of the person > asking questions, because well, as we've all read Crouch do it, he > spilled his guts to Dumbledore and the rest. I *don't* think he > would have given all that info if he were his normal self, do you?) I very much doubt that there are other spells that have the same effect as the Imperio, for two reasons. The first one, what would be the point of duplicating the spell? There is no aparent reason *not* to use the Imperio (except for the moral reasons, of course, and any other mind controlling spell would suffer from the same problem), and the second is that we *know* that the only three unforgivable curses are Imperio, AK and Cruciatus. If there was some other mind control spell around, it would be listed as unforgivable too, don't you think? > 2. Does the person who is casting the curse have to be in the > presence of the person getting hit by the curse? Or can the person > cast the curse from a different location, a la the Accio firebolt > that Harry did on the first task? Focus your mind, entirely and > absolutely...and....VOILA! I believe that you have to see the person you want to Imperio for it to work - it would be extremelly easy if not to take over the world, IMO. There is, however, no canon either way. The only thing that *is* canon is that, once under Imperio, you are mind controlled from afar - the wizard that put the spell on you doesn't have to keep watch. Oh - there is a little piece of circunstancial evidence: every time we've seen the Imperio used (including the time Crouch Sr. was put under Imperio by Voldemort) it was in presence of the subject. Voldemort didn't have to visit Crouch, after all, and it was downright dangerous for him (what if someone had seen them?), if he could cast the Imperio from afar. And then, in the GG (Graveyard Gathering), Harry hides behind the tomb and Voldemort has to talk him into poping out, instead of Imperio'ing him and, while Harry is fighting it off, walk around the gravestone and AK him. > 4. Are there different "levels" of the Imperio? If so, do these > levels relate to a)the "power" or ability of the witch/wizard that > casts it? (for example, would Voldy's Imperio allow him to have a > higher level of control over his victim than someone like, say, > Percy, who just got out of school and has not had as much practice? > And I am in NO WAY implying that Percy would do that.) b)The distance > between the caster and the victim when the victim is no longer in the > presence of the caster c)The health of the caster (not death - > Health meaning if the caster gets sick or is weakened somehow)? > > vojoca So far, from canon, the only "level" of Imperio depends on the recipient of the curse, and how fast it can throw it off. The fact that Harry takes the same time to throw off an Imperio from Crouch!Moody and from Voldemort seems to indicate that the strength of the victim is more important than the power of the caster. But, on the other hand, we have -I think- Mulciber, who was an expert in Imperio (I don't have the books handy to look it up, so it might be some other DE). If someone can be an expert, it means that the Imperio casting is not boolean (either you can or can't). However, I've always taken that to mean that he could have Imperio'ed many people at the same time, not just one or two (I would say that keeping many people mentally enslaved would tax the most resourceful of individuals). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 1 16:27:08 2003 From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (Catherine Coleman) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 16:27:08 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] In Defence of Harry (Was: Characters You Hate) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51360 Agreeing largely with Richelle and Scott, on this subject - I have to admit that whenever I hear that people don't like/are bored by Harry I am amazed. For me, he is one of the most interesting and almost enigmatic characters in the whole series, despite the fact that we know more about his internalising than any other character. People often say that there isn't much to say about Harry, because we always know what he's thinking - because most of the narrative is from his POV, but I think that JKR uses this very cleverly - she does *not* always let us know how he feels about things - there are several occasions when Harry observes, but does not comment internally - thereby leaving an ambiguity in the text, and something to the imagination of the reader. Because of this, although we can usually make a pretty good educated guess about how Harry feels about any one thing, we cannot assume that we know him as well as we think we do - at least I don't assume that. I have generally viewed Harry as a kind and likeable teenager, who despite a horrific childhood, and despite the responsibility which has been thrust upon him since starting Hogwarts, is remarkably well-adjusted. As far as the character defects which are being levelled at Harry, I would say that yes, at times he can be thoughtless and self-centred just like most people, but I would not say that they were over-riding characteristics, but that he *on occasion* can act selfishly just like everyone else. Taking firstly the fact that people think that he is self-centred. Why and how? My impression has been just the reverse. From the earlier books, particularly pre-Hogwarts, I have a very strong impression that Harry had always *known* that the world did not revolve around him, and that the Dursleys were doing their very best to make him feel worthless and a nobody. One effect of this treatment has been his insecurites - he expects to me useless at everything and is amazed when he is so good at Quidditch. He doesn't expect to be liked by people, to the extent that at the beginning of CoS he thinks that everyone has either forgotten about him, or worse, just don't care about him - and he finds the most amazing thing about the Burrow is that everyone seems to like him. The effects of the abuse at the hands of the Dursleys are also clear as soon as Harry enters the WW - , even when he finds out about his true background and of his fame in the Wizarding World, he finds it incredible that he actually is *someone*. He is overwhelmed in the Leaky Cauldron, and what I found particularly elucidating (and this would probably class as one of my all time favourite scenes because of its combination of pathos and humour) is the following: "Blimey," said the other twin. "Are you---?" "He is," said the first twin. "Aren't you?" he added to Harry. "What?" said Harry. "Harry Potter," chorused the twins. "Oh, him," said Harry. "I mean, yes, I am." At this point, it's as though Harry cannot reconcile himself as the person worthy of this instant celebrity status he has had thrust upon him. He actually can't reconcile the Harry Potter he knows himself to be with the Harry Potter who is infamous in the Wizarding World. Quite rightly so as well, IMO. I have always felt that these feelings of self-doubt about his own worth prompted him to want to prove himself constantly throughout all of the novels so far. He certainly does not expect that his celebrity status should grant him any special dispensations or treatment, and he certainly does not rest on his laurels. Again, just the reverse. Harry does not expect the world to revolve around him which is what one would expect from most self-centred people. He worries about his magical ability (doesn't think he has some pre-ordained right to get into Hogwarts), he is embarrassed about his fame - particularly in GoF - you could argue that part of the problem with the argument with Ron was that he felt that Ron thought he was revelling in the attention he was getting, which was very far from the truth - he thought that Ron should understand that. The one example I can think of of Harry's self-centredness is the fact that he hadn't bothered to find out much about Neville's past - but he is racked with guilt over this, and goes so far as to think that Neville's situation regarding his parents is worse than his own. He doesn't shrug this off and think "oh, well my situation is much worse" like a truly self-centred person. Thoughtless? Well, I would cite the same examples Richelle gave - including the fact that as regards the Weasley financial situation, he is particularly sensitive to Ron's feelings on the subject. He knows full well that Ron would be too proud to accept the gift of dress robes, so he finds another way in which to help him. I personally found that admirable. Of course, Harry can be thoughtless at times, and I would cite his treatment of Neville in PoA as one such example - a better one is when he and Ron flew the car to school, and I think Ron is largely to blame here (in fact was probably about the time Ron really started to irritate me) - but he is ovewhelmingly not thoughtless the majority of the time. I have sometimes thought that he hasn't shown as much emotion as one would expect (all those scenes in CoS for example when he holds Ron back from attacking those who are being mean about Hermione being petrified), but when I have analysed the scene, Harry has always had the bigger picture firmly at the forefront of his mind, besides worrying about how Ron's malfunctioning wand would do more harm than good. Keeping his emotions in check is important when one has other things to do - in one such example Harry was planning a trip into the Forbidden Forest to confront Aragog, showing that he was primarily concerned with freeing Hagrid from Azkaban, and solving the mystery of the Chamber of Secrets - to help Hermione. I would also find it hard to recognise "thoughtlessness" and "self-centredness" with the strong sense of loyalty Harry has. We see him lose his temper and become incredibly angry on few occasions, and most of them are because someone has attacked people Harry is intensely loyal to - look at the Aunt Marge incident (his parents), his feelings about Snape in PoA (his father), Tom Riddle (Hagrid, Dumbledore, Ginny and those who were petrified, including Hermione), Rita Skeeter (on behalf of Hagrid rather than himself), Draco Malfoy (Hagrid again, Hermione, the Weasleys). He clearly cares a lot about the people close to him, and in many instances shows less regard for his own predicaments than theirs. Finally, a quick word on "nosiness". I find this quite strange considering that many people on this list have in the past bemoaned Harry's lack of curiosity about things, such as what happened to the rest of his family, for example. But really, he is taught not to ask questions - not just by the Dursleys, but by Hagrid, Dumbledore, even Lupin, who are at key moments evasive with him - in other words, if he wants to find anything out, he has to find out for himself, rather than being told, which is exactly what he does. Of course, he doesn't need to find out about the Philosopher's Stone, or who has opened the Chamber of Secrets, or why Barty Crouch is searching Snape's office, but consider; the philosopher's stone was tied up with a comeback from Voldemort, the Chamber of Secrets had affected Harry personally, with people thinking that he himself was the Heir of Slytherin and with two of his closest friends harmed (Hermione and Hagrid), and in GoF, Harry has a sense of responsibility about Pettigrew's escape to Voldemort. He knows that he will inevitably be drawn into any ensuing conflict (knows, although doesn't understand, Voldemort's obsession with him and the Potters) and therefore needs to do whatever he can to figure out exactly what is happening. I am not saying that Harry doesn't have any bad qualities - just not the ones listed by those who don't like him. He prevaricates far too much, makes stupidly rash decisions when under pressure and doesn't always see the best thing to do - and he doesn't trust the adults around him enough for my liking, but again, that is understandable. I'd also love to say that he is a normal teenage boy, but unfortunately for Harry, he isn't. Catherine From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Feb 1 16:35:49 2003 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 16:35:49 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Favoritism in CoS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51361 Tom Wall wrote: > > I have really enjoyed reading all of the > different persepectives regarding Dumbledore and > the redistribution of house points and the end > of PS/SS. And I also have enjoyed the way that > many have defended his actions as "righting the > proper balance" to paraphrase Ali's paraphrasing > of that side of the debate. Whether or not I agree > is different, but I can respect that people sincerely > believe that Dumbledore was being fair. Point one: I don't think Dumbledore was being fair. I, like bboy, think that they should have been given more, and that Dumbedore didn't because he wanted to enhance Neville's act. I hardly feel it is "fair" to give a boy who has stood up to Voldemort 60 points. > Recap: In PS/SS, HHR did stuff, and got 60/50/50 > points respectively for the stuff they did. > > In CoS, Harry and Ron are awarded TWO-HUNDRED POINTS EACH. > > Okay. I would have been able to play along, I might > have even been convinced that Dumbledore isn't unfair, > no matter how tactless he may be. > > But if this doesn't prove that Dumbledore picks favorites, then... > well, it completely proves that Dumbledore picks favorites, there's > no question about it. ;-) Excuse me, but there is *always* a question about it. I honestly cannot believe that you can think that Harry hasn't earned those points. > WHAT did they do in the Chamber of Secrets to deserve two-hundred > points each? > > 200 POINTS: Harry was *loyal.* Harry stabbed a Basilisk, and stabbed > a book. FAWKES did all the really dangerous work... NOT TO MENTION > giving Harry the strength (via song) to do the above stuff. [sarcasm on] And the sword. If Harry hadn't had the sword... why, he was almost incidental, wasn't he? Anyone could've done it with all that help. [end sarcasm]. You are (deliberately or not) distortioning the facts. Harry and Ron figured out where the chamber was - something not even Dumbledore knew. Got it open. And had the guts to enter. And when Harry is in front of Tom and the Basilisk and receives help. But, as I point out in my little piece of sarcasm, you cannot say that "Fawkes did all the work" anymore than you can say "the sword did the killing". Both things are *instruments* -weapons, if you will- that Harry has the chance to use to help him along. Humans are not like lions or tigers or other animals. We are the dominant species of the planet because we have brains and hearts (i.e. spirit) - and in this case Harry's heart gives him the weapons he needs to defeat the basilisk. But that is besides the point - Harry kills the basilisk, and that is worth 400 points alone. A monster that has terrorised at least two generations of shool children is gone forever. Not only that, a girl's life is saved from possesion and her soul is rescued from utter destruction. And Voldemort is stopped once again. And *that* is also worth a couple hundred points in my book (if not more). In PS, Harry did nothing to stop Voldemort, when you get right down to it, since Voldemort had already been stopped - by the mirror. Harry created a problem when he took the stone out of the mirror, and solutioned by forcing Voldemort to flee. But in the chamber, Harry stops Voldemort completely - by figuring out that the basilisk's venom is potent enough to kill a book. As I said, we are supposed to be intelligent, not fighting machines. And wizards more than anyone. If what you want is a hero capable of taking a basilisk on hand-to-hand combat, go see a James Bond film or any of Arnold Schwarzenneger (I'm pretty sure I misspelled that). Luckily, Harry is not that way. > 200 POINTS: Ron did NOTHING... he was just *there,* which means that > Ron's complete lack of any action was worth more in Dumbledore's eyes > than the actions of all four Gryffindors the previous year. Being there is an achivement in its own. I think that willingness to risk your own life to save another's -even if it is your own sister- should be encouraged, don't you? And, as I said as my first point, the points awarded in PS where ridiculously few, probably to enhance Neville's actions (which wouldn't have happened if Harry had gotten the 300 points or so I feel his actions were worth). Besides, by what I've seen lately in the list, the fact that Ron was the one that caused Lockhart to loose his memory means that there are many that would give him 500 points alone for that little comunity service. I know I would, at least (and I don't particularly "hate" Lockhart). > AND not *only* did they get all the points, but they also both got > Special Awards for Services to the School. It's only fair, since they both colaborated in throwing out of the school the Heir. If Tom Riddle got himself award for that, why shouldn't Harry and Ron? I am disapointed that Hermione didn't get one, though. She's part of this just like the other two. Maybe Dumbledore isn't that bent on having favourites. > Now, even if you endorse Dumbledore's decision to grant all those > points at the end of PS/SS, personally overturning the results of the > House Cup, I'd like to see how anyone can defend him for this. This > is blatant favoritism. AND it's not canon, but my personal belief is > that he gave the points for the loyalty. Which doubly proves the > favoritism, 'cause the loyalty shown was to him. Exactly, this rant was all your personal belief, looking for ways to demonstrate Dumbledore's suposed favoritism. Notice I haven't mentioned loyalty at all in my own interpretation, although I could've had: loyalty to your elders and betters is something that should be encouraged too - especially when you consider that, in the upcoming war, loyalty to Dumbledore is probably going to be a must if Voldemort is to be defeated. But never mind that - defeating an immortal monster and saving a human life is more than enough to account for 400 points (evenly distributed) in my book. The rest of the things I mentioned are in the nature of a bonus, if you will. > Harry and Ron did NOT deserve 200 points each for the events in the > Chamber of Secrets. Special Awards, definitely. Some points, > definitely. 400. No way. > > -Tom Defeating Voldemort: +100. Killing a basilisk: +100. Saving a human life (AND it's soul): + 200. There you go - 400 points. And I still think it's a little stingy. I would raise the basilisk to 200, and also the defeat Voldemort part - but in my book saving a life is the most important thing, so this way it adds 400 and still gives credit were credit is due. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From susannahlm at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 16:50:38 2003 From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (derannimer ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 16:50:38 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and favoritism in COS Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51362 Tom wrote: >Recap: In PS/SS, HHR did stuff, and got 60/50/50 >points respectively for the stuff they did. >In CoS, Harry and Ron are awarded TWO-HUNDRED POINTS EACH. Yeah, but you know, in the first book the points are screwed up generally. I mean, look at Harry's first potions class. Snape takes *individual* points off him. In the other three books, you never lose or gain less than five points at a shot. Look at five points apiece for the troll. See, I think that by the second book JKR changed the point system so that each individual point was worth less, and started using them in rounder numbers. So I've always assumed that the discrepency in the rewards between PS/SS and COS was just part of the general points discrepency between PS/SS and COS. It's a bit Flinty, but not indicative of very much. Derannimer (who thinks that *a lot* of things are screwed up in the first book that JKR later got right. Look at the way Hagrid talks in PS/SS: "Gulpin' Gargoyles." ::cringes slightly:: We never hear anyone use that kind of "colorful wizard expression" throughout the course of the next three books, save for a couple references to Merlin. And certainly nothing alliterative. Thank heaven.) From joym999 at aol.com Sat Feb 1 17:30:28 2003 From: joym999 at aol.com (joywitch_m_curmudgeon ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 17:30:28 -0000 Subject: Not Slytherin, not Slytherin In-Reply-To: <3E3B24EE.83E200EB@pacificpuma.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51363 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, jazmyn wrote: > There is no canon to support the idea that all Slytherins are purebreds. > Tom Riddle was not a pureblood and the sorting hat wanted to put Harry > in Slytherin and he is not pureblood either. I agree that there's no canon to support that all Slytherins are purebloods, but I also think that very few wizards really are purebloods. I've always assumed that the whole pureblood thing was an allusion to "people" like Hitler, who claimed that the "Aryan race" was superior but who wasn't Aryan himself. In fact, the whole Aryan thing, as well as most definitions of "race", is fairly vague and hard to define. Most people can't possibly know if their ancestors are "pure" black, white, Irish, Chinese, Jewish, French, Eskimo, or anything else. In reality, the whole idea of a "pure" race of any sort is ridiculous, which is one of the many reasons why racial prejudice is ridiculous. Anyway, I think that the whole "pureblood" wizard thing is supposed to be as absurd and undefinable as the muggle sort, hence the constant questions about what, exactly, constitutes a "pureblood." --Joywitch From thomasmwall at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 17:43:12 2003 From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 17:43:12 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Favoritism in CoS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51364 I WROTE: But if this doesn't prove that Dumbledore picks favorites, then... well, it completely proves that Dumbledore picks favorites, there's no question about it. ;-) GREY WOLF REPLIED: Excuse me, but there is *always* a question about it. I honestly cannot believe that you can think that Harry hasn't earned those points. I REPLY: I know, I know, Grey Wolf. Calmness. Tranquility. See the ";-)"? GREY WOLF WRITES: And when Harry is in front of Tom and the Basilisk and receives help. But, as I point out in my little piece of sarcasm, you cannot say that "Fawkes did all the work" anymore than you can say "the sword did the killing". Both things are *instruments* -weapons, if you will- that Harry has the chance to use to help him along. I REPLY: I agree that the sword is an instrument, in that "instrument-iness" is the point of a sword (no pun intended.) But Fawkes? Nope. Fawkes clearly is acting of his own accord, or else under orders from Dumbledore. Harry in no way "uses" Fawkes. And without Fawkes, Harry would have been toast. GREY WOLF WRITES: Being there is an achivement in its own. I REPLY: Nope, totally disagree there. This seems to be a prevalent line of thought from several posters on this list. For the record, "existence," IMHO, is not action, unless breathing and sleeping are actions. Which, to be uber-technical, they are, but not in the spirit of the word. And without action, there's no merit for points. GREY WOLF WRITES: ...the fact that Ron was the one that caused Lockhart to loose his memory means that there are many that would give him 500 points alone for that little comunity service. I know I would... I REPLY: Nope, sorry, Ron didn't do that. His *wand* did. Or more accurately, Lockhart did it to himself, which IMHO is what makes the scene so wonderful. I WROTE: AND not *only* did they get all the points, but they also both got Special Awards for Services to the School. GREY WOLF REPLIED: It's only fair, since they both colaborated in throwing out of the school the Heir. If Tom Riddle got himself award for that, why shouldn't Harry and Ron? I am disapointed that Hermione didn't get one, though. I REPLY: Grey Wolf, the end of my post points out that I agreed with the Special Awards. And I'm not surprised that you'd think Hermione, petrified on a hospital bed, would be deserving of points. For logic and resourcefulness in the face of nothing in particular. Look, this brings me to a larger point: as a reader, I too can find a million and one reasons why HHR are brave, loyal, independent, selfless, civic-minded heroes who are deserving of every House Cup, every Quidditch Cup, and every award Hogwarts can offer, plus the Order of Merlin First Class to boot. That's *easy.* Anyone with a copy of the books could do this without any independent thought whatsoever, because that's precisely what we're *supposed* to be thinking. In other words, defending Harry is not a difficult task, since JKR has already made the case more eloquently than any of us could: because she deliberately wrote the books from that exact perspective. So, although I really appreciate the amount of time and effort that goes into such a great post as Catherine's "In Defense of Harry," it strikes me as the *one* thing that's not needed. That's, after all, what the entire series is. One big seven-book long story of Harry. And that's fine. As I said, I love the books, and I love HHR. And, you'll be surprised to find out that Dumbledore is one of my favorite characters, because, mostly, of his wisdom, and also his sense of humor. But it's *boring* to always take that perspective. If I wanted that perspective, I wouldn't be on this list. I'd be re-reading the series all the time, which, ironically, I am anyways. ;-) It's much more interesting to try to look at things another way. And I'll I'm doing here is pointing out that there is a very compelling case to be made against Dumbledore... and that it seems likely to me that she's doing it for a reason which we'll become privy to in subsequent installments -Tom From starropal at hotmail.com Sat Feb 1 17:56:37 2003 From: starropal at hotmail.com (Star Opal) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 11:56:37 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Does Snape hate muggleborns? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51365 Sally wrote: >After following the recent thread, "Who's more out of line?", it >started me thinking that Snape's mistreatment of Hermione may >possibly be indicative of his hidden loathing for muggleborns. Well here's what always stuck out to me: "'It has happened," she told the silent staff room. 'A student has been taken by the monster. Right into the Chamber itself.' Professor Flitwick let out a squeal. Professor Sprout clapped her hands over her mouth. Snape gripped the back of a chair very hard and said, 'How can you be sure?'" - CoS ch 16 pg 293, US pb Up until Ginny the attacks had focused on muggle borns. At this point McGonagall hasn't said who was taken. So why would Snape "gripped the back of a chair very hard" if he loathes or hates muggle borns? No mention of sneering, or looks of triumph or amusement. He's disturbed along with Flitwick and Sprout. The thing that got me about this 'scene' is that this is one of the few times we see Snape acting without (as he thinks) any students around. Infact, he's only around the core teachers. So if he is still trying to do the spy thing... I mean, no Slytherin or otherwise students, no new untrustworthy teachers, no _outsiders_ are in the room. So this is a very important moment to look at Snape as he acts without anyone watching him. Also there is very little Harry POV in this scene. It describes what is said and the consequent actions by the listeners. Star Opal "Just the man," he said. "The very man. A girl has been snatched by the monster, Lockhart. Taken into the the Chamber of Secrets itself. Your moment has come at last." - Snape CoS ch 16 _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail From thomasmwall at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 17:57:40 2003 From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 17:57:40 -0000 Subject: What's annoying about Harry (WAS: Characters you hate) In-Reply-To: <1ee.c094fb.2b6cd617@aol.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51366 I think that this is in order, here. Let's see if everyone's stomach is up to it. What I find most annoying about Harry is his incredible stubbornness, his procrastination, his belief, along Snapian lines, that despite everyone's efforts to safeguard him, he's above the rules. And I can't *STAND* the way he refuses to listen to reason once he's had his mind made up. Some examples of this: PS/SS: Hagrid repeatedly tells HHR that it's "rubbish" that Snape would try to steal the stone. Do they listen? Nope. They instead spend the whole time trying to falsely prove that he is a thief and killer. CoS: First off, if Harry would just *tell* Dumbledore that he hears a strange voice, then we'd have gotten through the whole thing a lot quicker, IMHO. It's largely due to Harry's stubbornness that the attacks continue, whereas if he'd been honest in the first place, the connection that he's a Parselmouth would have enabled the staff to solve the problem. PoA: In the Shrieking Shack, it really bothers me that, first off, Harry and Ron refuse to listen to Lupin and Black because they're both too stubborn to entertain the notions that a) Black may be innocent, and b) Scabbers may be more than he seems to be. But what REALLY annoys me is the way that they turn these same criticisms on Snape once he starts behaving the same way they were a few minutes ago. And then they attack him for it. Unbelievable. I can't express how many times I've read these books and thought to myself "No, Harry, NO, just TELL Dumbledore, the truth" or "just LISTEN to Lupin, what's WRONG with you, it's clearly you who doesn't know what he's talking about!!!" I guess ultimately what makes Harry such a compelling character is that he's real, and real people don't always make the best decisions. And that's why I love him and his friends so much, and that's why I keep reading. But that doesn't make his bad qualities any less annoying. ;-) -Tom From suzchiles at pobox.com Sat Feb 1 18:04:35 2003 From: suzchiles at pobox.com (Suzanne Chiles) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 10:04:35 -0800 Subject: [HPforGrownups] What's annoying about Harry (WAS: Characters you hate) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51367 Tom Wall said: > What I find most annoying about Harry is his > incredible stubbornness, his procrastination, his > belief, along Snapian lines, that despite everyone's > efforts to safeguard him, he's above the rules. > And I can't *STAND* the way he refuses to listen to > reason once he's had his mind made up. May I then ask: how rational, open-minded, and adult-like were you between the ages of 11 and 14? For me, anyway, whatever behavior we would wish Harry to emulate, we must remember that he still a child. And still a pretty young child, at that. Suzanne From Crunchy_Chocolate_Frog at hotmail.com Sat Feb 1 15:43:20 2003 From: Crunchy_Chocolate_Frog at hotmail.com (Crunchy Frog) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 15:43:20 +0000 Subject: Characters you Love/was:Re: Re: Characters you hate Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51368 My favorite characters... *ponders the question* I like Draco, but that is probably because of all the fanfiction I've been reading lately. In the books he is portrayed as a rather unpleasant little snob. I really, really, really sympathize with Neville. I was (and still am) rather forgetful, and if I don't write things down, I forget them, I used to be very, very clumsy, costing my parents new sets of cups and plates every several months *g* and I kept losing things. I heard that people like to compare Neville with Peter Pettigrew, and I hope that Neville will amount to more than being a yellow rat. I also like Hermione, how she firmly believes that almost any problem, after spending enough time in the library, can be easily solved, but is not afraid to ^not^ be a book-worm sort of person, or to stand up to the adults when she thinks that they are wrong (as in Snape in the Shrieking Shack, or Rita Skeeter in a jar, which, after she is let loose, that event will probably come back and haunt Hermione. ;-) when she has to. I like Molly, Professor McGonagall, Madam Maxime and Fleur because they are the most prominent female characters, and those that are most well developed (except for Petunia Dursley, but although I like her as a character, same as I do every other character, I don't like her as a person). They are strong and intelligent (I don't buy what a fellow HP lover told me that Fleur is very, very stupid. She isn't. If she were, she wouldn't have been chosen to be her school's champion, unless the Goblet choses randomly the pupil's name), and I hope that they will continue showing up in future books and that JKR won't kill them. I also love Ron. Yes, he's prejudiced (against Remus, is one example that comes to mind), yes he feels irrational jealousy against Harry for something that is not Harry's fault, and he is very fallible. But he learns from his mistakes. He now knows that Werewolves aren't all really, really bad, and that they are people too (except during *that* time of the month), and I understand what Hermione says to Harry, that she knows that none of that stuff in GoF is Harry's fault, but it was one time too much for Ron that Harry was in the spotlight yet again and he was shunted to the side. One of the scenes with Ron in them that I love most is the one where he sees Crookshanks follow Pig's movements in the air, and he snatches Pig to safety, and when Harry goes on reading the letter saying that Ron can keep the owl as it's his fault Ron no longer has a rat, he lets Crookshanks sniff out Pig and says "What d'you reckon? Definitely an owl?" or something like that, sorry for not quoting exactly. Y'see? even after being prejudiced against Crookshanks, he learns the truth and finds out that everybody's favorite cat isn't as nasty as he thought he was. This one isn't related to the question, but there are many side-stories in HP (like the MWPP story of their days at Hogwarts, or Nicolas Flamel's story) and comments that I just roll on the floor laughing about them. One of my favorites is the one where Dumbledore talks about his brother, Aberforth, and how he did illegal charms on a goat. Another one is when Harry asks Dumbledore what he sees in the Mirror of Erised and Dumbledore says that he sees people giving him socks, since a lot of people insist on giving him books for some reason. It might not be entirely truthful, but it is funny. Very funny. T-T-That's all, folks. (for now, at least ^g^) Crunchy Chocolate Frog + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + Mr. Hilton: Oh, we use only the finest baby frogs, dew-picked and flown from Iraq, cleansed in the finest quality spring water, lightly killed, and sealed in a succulent, Swiss, quintuple-smooth, treble-milk chocolate envelope, and lovingly frosted with glucose. Inspector: That's as may be, but it's still a frog! Mr. Hilton: What else? Inspector: Well, don't you even take the bones out? Mr. Hilton: If we took the bones out, it wouldn't be crunchy, would it? ~"Crunchy Frog", Monty Python~ + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + - + _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus From foxmoth at qnet.com Sat Feb 1 18:22:38 2003 From: foxmoth at qnet.com (pippin_999 ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 18:22:38 -0000 Subject: Snape/Lily and respect, was Snape and Respect In-Reply-To: <3E3A6646.30240.31E0409@localhost> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51369 I said: > As to all that goes on in Snape's head I couldn't begin to guess, > but I will submit a LOLLIPOPS apologia for Snape's behavior in > this scene. He has once again arrived just too late to prevent a > Muggle-born witch from taking a curse meant for Harry Potter. Shaun: >>OK... if that is true, I *might*, just *might* be able to forgive him. If his reaction was one born of frustration at his falure to save someone who he thinks he should be saved, or born of guilt, or of memories of the past that welled up inside him, I could*maybe* have a little sympathy for the man in this case. Still unacceptable, but less than deliberate cruelty. But I find that hard to credit - because of this: "Snape looked coldly at Hermione, then said, 'I see no difference.'" That pause. For me to grant him sympathy, I have to assume he had enoughself-control that none of his feelings were apparent in his face or manner at all - but not enough to stop himself making that comment<< Amanda, premier Snapologist, agreed with Shaun: >>Ah, Pippin, you know my leanings, but I can't give you this one. Snape is cold and matter of fact. I don't get any vibes of this sort from this scene. I think he's just being, as someone pithily put it, a right bastard.<<< Oh for goodness sake, you two! This is *Snape* we're talking about. Snape doesn't have to *think up* insults. They're like Kleenex -- they pop out instantly from some reservoir of inner spleen. I guess I will have to guess at what goes on in Snape's head after all-- As usual, in this scene Snape knows both more and less than the reader. Things that Snape is aware of and the reader isn't include, for this example, the whole Snape/Lily history, whatever it might be, exactly what Snape's responsibility for Harry is, and that Dark Wizard trick of using Imperio to force one innocent wizard to curse another. Like the reader, Snape's been told there is a Dark Wizard who can use mind control trying to kill Harry. What the reader knows and Snape doesn't is that what just happened in the corridor is nothing more than a school boy spat. Snape definitely has more responsibility for Harry than teaching him potions, BTW, for he attends the Champions Briefing after the Goblet gave Harry's name, which has nothing to do with potions or Slytherin House. His good cop, bad cop scenes with McGonagall are, IMO, some of the sliest humor in the series. But I digress. So Snape comes on the scene, having heard a bellow from Goyle, who is hurt but unlike Hermione is not "whimpering in panic,"panic-stricken," or "terrified." Snape has also heard Hermione's "terrified cry", but doesn't know that it was her, because the first thing he asks is, "And what is all this noise about?" Snape learns that Harry and Draco exchanged curses and calmly sends Goyle off to the Hospital Wing. Then Ron draws his attention: "Malfoy got Hermione!," with what, of course, Snape does not know. Now *I* think it possible that something about the situation triggered an unconscious association with the Muggle-born witch who died taking a curse for Harry Potter. And it hit Snape like the Hogwarts Express. So Snape just locks up for a moment, as frozen as Hermione. Ron and Harry, of course, think he's not paying attention. So Ron yells, "*Look*!" and Snape, who has no idea why his mind just did this terrifying thing to him but who knows that there is a Dark Wizard who specializes in mind-control on the loose, calls on all the emotional control he has available, turns on the coldest vampire stare he can manage and forces himself to look at Hermione...who, godsbethanked, is only suffering from the not very dangerous Densaugeo curse, but seems to be on the verge of hysterics the silly witch, and why can't Weasley that overgrown lout take her to the Hospital Wing instead of staring at me? Oh, he expects me to do something, is that it? Doesn't feel like playing the hero today? Very well..." He's not thinking, "what's the nastiest thing I can say to a helpless teenage girl", he's thinking, "how do I make this hysterical underage female get herself under control without blowing my cover, and what the hell just happened to me?" To borrow a phrase, that's my story. And I'm sticking to it. Pippin From trondmm-hp4gu at crusaders.no Sat Feb 1 18:26:31 2003 From: trondmm-hp4gu at crusaders.no (Trond Michelsen) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 19:26:31 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quirrel dead? In-Reply-To: ; from srsiriusblack@aol.com on Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 10:06:25PM -0500 References: Message-ID: <20030201192631.D5483@crusaders.no> No: HPFGUIDX 51370 On Fri, Jan 31, 2003 at 10:06:25PM -0500, srsiriusblack at aol.com wrote: >> OK, OK, he might be alive, but I can't begin to explain how disappointed >> I'll be if he does turn up again. Particularly if he makes his sudden >> reappearance as the villain of any of the remaining books. We've already >> had two supposedly dead guys as the villain. Isn't it time to let the >> living take over? > but, you snipped the part out of being in St. Mungos... and being too crazy > now to be a threat. Ah, yes. I guess I didn't read the text properly. Sorry about that. However, I just have to ask: what would be the point? > I don't think he would come back in a villainous role. That would be too > silly for JKR. But, think of all the people that Voldie did sent to St > Mungos... It's a possibility.... OK, let's look at the possibilities: 1. He's dead Not much to say about this, as this is what "everybody" thinks. 2. He's alive, but we never meet (or hear from him) him again This probably belongs in the "You can't prove me wrong" category. If Quirrel's never mentioned again in the remaining books, anybody who wants to believe that he's actually alive, can do so, I guess. I just don't see the point. 3. He's alive, and we meet him briefly without any connection with the plot. Again, I'll have to ask: Why? I mean, if you choose to bring back somebody from beyond the grave, why would you do it for something that's completely irrelevant for the story? Seeing Quirrel again would be a shocking surprise for almost every reader, and if we just see him briefly in a single chapter, then never hear from him again, I'd feel pretty cheated. 4. He's alive and will be a major part of a future plot. I've already said how disgusted I'll be if this happens. Did I forget any? Now, if I remember correctly, the "we can't prove he really died"-theory comes from Dumbledore's comment that Voldy just left him to die, and that this doesn't rule out the possibility that someone saved his life. That may be so, but what if we look at the whole situation? Here we have an eleven year old boy who's just found out that his teacher has been possessed, and that had to fight for his life against him. When he wakes up, Dumbledore tells him that the teacher was left to die. He must realize that Harry will think that this mean Quirrel actually did die. Isn't it spectacularly cruel of him to leave out the fact that he survived, and just let Harry think he was killed? Unless you subscribe to the evil Dumbledore theory, this just doesn't seem like him at all. I mean, try to imagine the principal of a muggle school entering a class of eleven year olds to tell them that their teacher has been the victim of a robbery. That she was stabbed and left to die. I would absolutely expect her to tell the class about it if the teacher actually survived the stabbing. Wouldn't you? Anyway, there are also an incident outside canon that could make it difficoult to bring him back, even if JKR might have wanted to initially. In the movie, there is absolutely no doubt that Quirrel died, so JKR would probably think twice about bringing him back. His part would probably be pretty important if he returns, something that only increases Warner's headache, as that makes it even more difficoult to cut out Quirrel from future movies. -- Trond Michelsen From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 1 18:34:17 2003 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 18:34:17 -0000 Subject: What's annoying about Harry (WAS: Characters you hate) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51371 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Tom Wall " wrote: > > I think that this is in order, here. Let's see > if everyone's stomach is up to it. > > What I find most annoying about Harry is his > incredible stubbornness, his procrastination, his > belief, along Snapian lines, that despite everyone's > efforts to safeguard him, he's above the rules. > And I can't *STAND* the way he refuses to listen to > reason once he's had his mind made up. See, maybe I'm just strange, but these are precisely the qualities I find most endearing about Harry. If, on top of all his heroic qualities, he was also reasonable, diligent, obedient and uniformly sweet-tempered, I'd hate him with a fiery passion for being such a holier-than-thou little prig. There are times when he does things that are so wrong-headed that I just want to smack him, but those are also the times when I most care about him, the times when I actually believe in him as an adolescent boy rather than an archetypal fantasy hero. And they're also the times when I most appreciate his virtues, because as an archetypal fantasy hero Harry might be seriously flawed, but as an adolescent boy I think he's pretty terrific. Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Feb 1 18:40:47 2003 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 18:40:47 -0000 Subject: What's annoying about Harry (WAS: Characters you hate) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51372 Tom Wall wrote: > What I find most annoying about Harry is his > incredible stubbornness, his procrastination, his > belief, along Snapian lines, that despite everyone's > efforts to safeguard him, he's above the rules. > And I can't *STAND* the way he refuses to listen to > reason once he's had his mind made up. > > Some examples of this: > > PS/SS: Hagrid repeatedly tells HHR that it's > "rubbish" that Snape would try to steal the stone. > Do they listen? Nope. They instead spend the whole > time trying to falsely prove that he is a thief and > killer. Let me turn that around. Let's say that HHR had realised from the first moment that the potential thief was Quirrell, and had told as much to Hagrid (i.e. substitute "Snape" for "Quirrell"). What would've Hagrid answer be? "rubbish - he's a school teacher and helped defend the stone" (translated into the apropiate colourful language)- JUST LIKE SNAPE. Luckily for everyone, Harry trusts his gut feelings when something potentially disastreous can happen, and is not stopped by the likes of Hagrid or Hermione that believe that all teachers are saints. > CoS: First off, if Harry would just *tell* Dumbledore > that he hears a strange voice, then we'd have gotten > through the whole thing a lot quicker, IMHO. It's > largely due to Harry's stubbornness that the attacks > continue, whereas if he'd been honest in the first place, > the connection that he's a Parselmouth would have enabled > the staff to solve the problem. (Pale) yellow flag. Point of canon: the attacks don't continue after his talk with Dumbledore: almost all have happened by then, the only two that are left are Hermione/Penelope. And of course, the first thing that comes to Harry's mind when Dumbledore asks that question is the fact that he, with Hermione and Ron, have broken "about 50 school rules" to prepare the multijuice potion. And since Harry is under the threat (made by Dumbledore himself) that another rule violation and he would be expelled, it's not the sort that would encourage Harry to reveal what's going on in his life. Besides, I don't know that Dumbledore would've been able to act on that information. I'm pretty sure that all the teachers had realised that the monster was a basilisk by now (OK, all except Lockhart). The fact that Harry could hear it speak would only have told Dumbledore that Harry speaks parseltongue - which he already knew, after the duel class. The important thing to discover the basilisk is that the entrance to the chamber of secrets is in Myrtle's bathroom, and you cannot deduce that from a voice in the wall. > PoA: In the Shrieking Shack, it really bothers me that, > first off, Harry and Ron refuse to listen to Lupin and Black > because they're both too stubborn to entertain the notions > that a) Black may be innocent, and b) Scabbers may be more > than he seems to be. But what REALLY annoys me is the way > that they turn these same criticisms on Snape once he starts > behaving the same way they were a few minutes ago. And then > they attack him for it. Unbelievable. I can't argue that they shouldn't have listened to Lupin (although I'll draw the line at listening to a convicted murderer and known traitor - not listening to him is a *good* idea), but I have to point out that they didn't attack Snape because he wouldn't listen, but because he goaded them into it, but purposedly insulting Harry's dead parents (with a good reason, too, if you ask me - but then, I'm an MDDT. Check Pip's post 39662 for the full details). Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From starropal at hotmail.com Sat Feb 1 18:44:22 2003 From: starropal at hotmail.com (Star Opal) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 12:44:22 -0600 Subject: Characters you Love/was:Re: [HPforGrownups] Re: Characters you hate Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51373 >But how about the flip side of the coin? Which HP character do you like >most >and why? Well I couldn't respond to the hate question because there are no characters I can put in that category. I either like them or they are performing their function as they were written to so, *shrugs* eh. Starting w/ top 3, in order of most love: Dumbledore - He's funny and mysterious, and after the thing about Erised and socks he reminded me of my mother (weird I know) Snape - Also funny, just in a different way, mysterious, and terribly interesting Fred and George - Funny, just funny. (funny goes a long way with me) McGonagall Lupin Sirius Molly Hermione Draco Star Opal _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: smart spam protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From rusalka at ix.netcom.com Sat Feb 1 18:55:50 2003 From: rusalka at ix.netcom.com (marinafrants ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 18:55:50 -0000 Subject: Snape/Lily and respect, was Snape and Respect In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51374 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "pippin_999 " wrote: > He's not thinking, "what's the nastiest thing I can say to a > helpless teenage girl", he's thinking, "how do I make this > hysterical underage female get herself under control without > blowing my cover, and what the hell just happened to me?" And the best answer he can come up with is to sneer and coldly say "I see no difference"? Color me highly unconvinced. There is not the slightest sign of anything unusual in Snape's demeanor during that scene. No unexplicable looks or gestures, no sign of distraction or distress. It's all the standard Snape nastiness, and I think that he is, in fact, thinking "what's the nastiest thing I can say to a helpless teenage girl?" Or, more likely, "what's the nastiest thing I can say to a deeply annoying Gryffindor know-it-all who's been a thorn in my side for four years running, and whom I've just been lucky to catch in a particularly vulnerable moment." Marina rusalka at ix.netcom.com From sophiamcl at hotmail.com Sat Feb 1 18:57:25 2003 From: sophiamcl at hotmail.com (sophia mclaughlin) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 18:57:25 +0000 Subject: What's annoying about Harry Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51375 Hello, all. I'm a very lazy lurker: I'll admit to visiting this list only occasionally.(I've been hanging out at another HPFGU-list) Nevertheless, Tom's comments made me want to surface, I hope you won't mind. Tom:What I find most annoying about Harry is his incredible stubbornness, his procrastination, his belief, along Snapian lines, that despite everyone's efforts to safeguard him, he's above the rules. And I can't *STAND* the way he refuses to listen to reason once he's had his mind made up. Me: If Harry would always listen to reason, never put things off, and always kept the rules and always saw things with a wider perspective he'd be REALLY annoying. I know you love Harry, Tom, but you seem to think it is inspite of his failings. However, since you acknowledge it is his shortcomings that make him real, maybe you and I are alike--I love him BECAUSE of his failings. Besides, if he didn't have them, there could be no coming of age story,no true battles to fight. Voldenmort's a worthy foe, but to me, it's Harry's development as he gradually learns more of his identity and allows himself to FEEL and acknowledge those feelings that really make the story interesting. (The "howl of misery" that he almost gives in to--how I wish he had!--at the end of GoF is significant in this respect. His development must include healing too--but know I Harry's tears have been discussed on this list previously) It's his failings that lead him to the experiences that ultimately allow him to grow, which perhaps is true for all of us. -Sophia _________________________________________________________________ The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Feb 1 19:01:48 2003 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 19:01:48 -0000 Subject: Dumbledore and Favoritism in CoS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51376 Tom Wall wrote: > But Fawkes? Nope. Fawkes clearly is acting of his own > accord, or else under orders from Dumbledore. > Harry in no way "uses" Fawkes. > > And without Fawkes, Harry would have been toast. Let me put it this way: if Fawkes was all that was needed to destroy the basilisk, why didn't Dumbledore send it immediately after the first attack? Since Fawkes did all the work, there was no need to wait for a 12-year-old to piece eveything toghether, did it? No - don't answer that last question. After all, we all know the answer. The fact is that Fawkes was *not* the panacea (or elixir of life ). Harry *had* to be there, and it was Harry that caused the entire situation. The fact that Fawkes saved Harry's life doesn't make Harry's act less valid. If instead of Fawkes, Harry had carried with him a mirror shield (like the appropiate Greek Hero - can't remember which one right now) and an anti-venom with him, Fawkes would've been unnecesary. Which means that Fawkes was nothing but an instrument, even though he moves in its own accord. > GREY WOLF WRITES: > Being there is an achivement in its own. > > I REPLY: > Nope, totally disagree there. This seems to be a > prevalent line of thought from several posters on > this list. For the record, "existence," IMHO, > is not action, unless breathing and sleeping are > actions. Which, to be uber-technical, they are, but > not in the spirit of the word. And without action, > there's no merit for points. Let me give you a quote: (talking about dinosaurs) Recent Runes: "When they come to write the history of this world, this is the page everyone will skip. Terribly dull lizards, they'll be called. You mark my words." Rincewind: "They have stayed around for a hundred million years, sir." Recent Runes: "And what have they done? Is there a single line of poetry? A building of any sort? A piece of simple artwork?" Rincewind: "They've just not died, sir." Recent Runes: "Not dying out is some kind of achievement, is it?" Rincewind: "Best kind there is, sir." Ian Stewart, Jack Cohen and Terry Pratchett, Science of Discworld Existing and surviving *is* the greatest achivement there is, from a certain point of view. But never mind that - in this case "being there" has the same value of "standing to Voldemort" in the PS - it takes a lot of courage to go look for a basilisk. The fact that Ron went along is already an achivement, because, when push comes to shove, it is our intentions that count, and Ron would've gone to the end if it wasn't for the bloccked passage. > Look, this brings me to a larger point: as a reader, I too can find a > million and one reasons why HHR are brave, loyal, independent, > selfless, civic-minded heroes who are deserving of every House Cup, > every Quidditch Cup, and every award Hogwarts can offer, plus the > Order of Merlin First Class to boot. That's *easy.* Anyone with > a copy of the books could do this without any independent thought > whatsoever, because that's precisely what we're *supposed* to be > thinking. > > In other words, defending Harry is not a difficult task, since JKR > has already made the case more eloquently than any of us could: > because she deliberately wrote the books from that exact perspective. > > So, although I really appreciate the amount of time and effort that > goes into such a great post as Catherine's "In Defense of Harry," it > strikes me as the *one* thing that's not needed. That's, after all, > what the entire series is. One big seven-book long story of Harry. > > And that's fine. As I said, I love the books, and I love HHR. And, > you'll be surprised to find out that Dumbledore is one of my favorite > characters, because, mostly, of his wisdom, and also his sense of > humor. > > But it's *boring* to always take that perspective. If I wanted that > perspective, I wouldn't be on this list. I'd be re-reading the series > all the time, which, ironically, I am anyways. ;-) It's much more > interesting to try to look at things another way. And I'll I'm doing > here is pointing out that there is a very compelling case to be > made against Dumbledore... and that it seems likely to me that she's > doing it for a reason which we'll become privy to in subsequent > installments > > -Tom OK, let me see if I've got this straight - you are telling me that, since defending Harry and co. and Dumbledore is easy, we should all just play dead when you come along putting them down? I'm sorry, but I will never do that. I am in this list because I hold opinions in the theme of HP. Opinions that are not always universal (see the MD wars for examples of what I'm talking about). There is no need to go out of my way to expose theories that I don't believe in and, what is more, I will *always* defend my own viewpoint, unless I feel that whomever is against me is being silly (in which case, I can't be bothered). But that adendum is unnecesary, so far, in your case, so as long as I continue to have arguments I *will* defend what I believe to be correct. And in this case, I believe that Harry earned every single one of those points, and probably more, and that thus it doesn't show any form of favoritism on Dumbledore's part. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From kristen at sanderson-web.com Sat Feb 1 19:02:36 2003 From: kristen at sanderson-web.com (gkjpo ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 19:02:36 -0000 Subject: Who has the map? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51377 I have been re-reading GoF lately and it made me stop and think. I don't believe anyone mentioned this after Barty's confession in the book, so who went and picked up the Marauders Map from Fake!Moody's office? Was it: a. Dumbledore? He was surprised by its existence, so he may have made a point to go get it. b. Harry? He could have made his way over to Moody's office and snagged it back. c. Snape? Always a possibility, and if it did play a part in The Prank as some have suggested, he would be extra curious about it. d. McGonnagal? She was present when it was mentioned, but I think she's least likely to have gone to get it. e. Winky? She was probably too busy bemoaning Barty's (jr and sr) demise. f. Real!Moody? If Dumbledore told him about what happened, he may have gotten the map. g. Anyone else? I think I vote for f. We know that Real!Moody is in OotP and it would be interesting if he were able to help by providing this important information. I amost added Rita Skeeter. It's possible that she overheard Barty's confession too (did Moody have a window office?), but I can't believe there's any benefit in her having it. Kristen - sorry if this was discussed before From thomasmwall at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 19:05:24 2003 From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 19:05:24 -0000 Subject: What's annoying about Harry (WAS: Characters you hate) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51378 Grey Wolf, nice point on Quirrell, and although it's a conjectural one, I agree that Hagrid probably would have had the same answers. That doesn't exonerate Harry for falsely accused Snape of some fairly nasty stuff on nothing but coincidence, IMHO. I WROTE: First off, if Harry would just *tell* Dumbledore that he hears a strange voice, then we'd have gotten through the whole thing a lot quicker, IMHO. It's largely due to Harry's stubbornness that the attacks continue GREY WOLF REPLIED: (Pale) yellow flag. Point of canon: the attacks don't continue fter his talk with Dumbledore: almost all have happened by then, the only two that are left are Hermione/Penelope. And of course, the first thing that comes to Harry's mind when Dumbledore asks that question is the fact that he, with Hermione and Ron, have broken "about 50 school rules" to prepare the multijuice potion. And since Harry is under the threat (made by Dumbledore himself) that another rule violation and he would be expelled, it's not the sort that would encourage Harry to reveal what's going on in his life. I REPLY: In other words, Harry's selfish consideration of his place at the school as more important than honesty and the confession that he hears the attacker is justified? No, I disagree with that entirely. It was a selfish, self-centered 12 year old boy thing to do. Of course, we all know that Harry didn't tell Dumbledore the truth at any point because of his rule breaking, and also because Ron suggested that [paraphrased] "even in the wizarding world, hearing voices that no one else can hear is a bad thing." Those are merely explanations, not justifications for his behavior. Also, I don't see where the yellow flag comes from. I wrote "If Harry WOULD just *tell* Dumbledore." When had nothing to do with it. IF Harry had been sensible and told Dumbledore right away, much might have been avoided. But luckily for us, Harry is not too sensible (logical, but not sensible) - otherwise we wouldn't have had much of a story. ;-) GREY WOLF WROTE: I'm pretty sure that all the teachers had realised that the monster was a basilisk by now (OK, all except Lockhart). I REPLY: There's no canon to support that. Is that just a MD thing? AND GREY WOLF WROTE: they didn't attack Snape because he wouldn't listen, but because he goaded them into it, but purposedly insulting Harry's dead parents (with a good reason, too, if you ask me - but then, I'm an MDDT. Check Pip's post 39662 for the full details). I REPLY: Yeah, Magic Dishwasher is very interesting, although I'm not sure it's entirely thorough in its reading of the text, and it does assume a lot out of canon, which is fine, given its nature. At my present point in reading through the posts subsequent to Pip's, I'd say that roughly 1/3 of it seems (to me) like it is very much the case. I have plenty of questions about it, but haven't read through all of the posts yet, and don't want to reiterate previously brough up stuff. -Tom From pen at pensnest.co.uk Sat Feb 1 19:23:33 2003 From: pen at pensnest.co.uk (Pen Robinson) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 19:23:33 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] The Prank? Was Doing the Two-Step In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51379 On Saturday, Feb 1, 2003, at 03:00 Europe/London, dicentra63 wrote: > > So can we *please* pretty please not call this the *stomp* anymore, > because that's not what happened. The Prank was most surely a prank > (as far as we can tell), but there's a world of difference between a > step and a stomp. > Off on a favourite tangent... as I remember, Lupin didn't describe what Sirius did as a 'prank', he described it as a 'trick'. To me, the shades of meaning implied in 'prank' are fairly lighthearted, non-serious in intention, probably meant to amuse. 'Trick' is potentially more sinister. To me at least, it carries greater implications of malice than does 'prank'. It also seems to me that a bit more thought goes into a trick than into a prank. IOW, Sirius *meant* to do something nasty. (His subsequent defensiveness, along the lines that Snape deserved it, confirms this.) So why do we all call it 'The Prank'? Pen From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 19:24:38 2003 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 11:24:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: Not Slytherin, not Slytherin In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030201192438.20719.qmail@web10901.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51380 --- Dicentra wrote: > JKR is most definitely biased against House Slytherin, but it's > because Salazar Slytherin hates "Mudbloods" and wanted to impose that > value system on Hogwarts admissions policy. Good heavens, the man hid > a *basilisk* in the castle to wipe out "undesirables" centuries after > his death. His heir--Tom Riddle--mounted an enormous campaign to > "cleanse" the WW of "the wrong sort." *coughs* Excuse me, but no. :) We don't really know all that much about Salazar Slytherin, and once again I step forward to say the man is NOT evil, dangit! We know only that he disagreed with Godric as far as admitting Mudbloods, not that he hated them in general or wanted them killed. Prof. Binns explained, "Slytherin wished to be more *selective* about the students admitted to Hogwarts. He believed that magical learning should be kept within all-magic families. He disliked taking students of Muggle parentage, believing them to be untrustworthy." (Ch. 9, COS) Being selective, beliving them untrustworthy -- this is a FAR cry from "let's kill 'em all!" Given the attitude people had towards magic a thousand years ago, I'd be a little wary if I was an actual witch as well. Salazar could have thought that it was *dangerous* to bring Muggle-born students in, because it would be revealing the school to Muggles who mostly hated magic, and thus been trying to protect the rest of their students! Nothing ever indicated that he was leading some campaign to wipe out Muggles in general. Just because Godric turned out to be right (as far as we know) doesn't mean that Salazar didn't have valid points. As for the basilisk, I return to my argument that we don't have anything to show Salazar actually intended the basilisk to hurt the Muggle-borns, except a thousand year old legend perpetuated by those who stayed at the school and were thus *against* Slytherin in the argument. (Try playing a game of Telephone and see how mangled the message gets in a few minutes. Multiply that over a thousand years.) The basilisk was confined to a chamber that only Salazar (at the time) could open. That could have been as much for safety as anything else. If a man does dangerous experiments in a laboratory he locks so only he can open it, but then someone else later opens it and causes damage with the experiments, should we blame the original guy or the one who caused the problems? Don't blame Salazar for what Voldemort did. Wait until we know a little more about Salazar himself. Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From rvotaw at i-55.com Sat Feb 1 19:27:35 2003 From: rvotaw at i-55.com (rvotaw at i-55.com) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 13:27:35 -0600 (CST) Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's annoying about Harry /Characters you love Message-ID: <28639807.1044127655290.JavaMail.root@webmail.i-55.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51381 Tom wrote (concerning Harry's not telling Dumbledore about voices in CoS): > In other words, Harry's selfish consideration of his place at the
> school as more important than honesty and the confession that he
> hears the attacker is justified? No, I disagree with that entirely.
> It was a selfish, self-centered 12 year old boy thing to do.
I disagree with your disagreement. (Yes, here I go, defending Harry again!) Not telling Dumbledore about the voices he'd heard wasn't a "selfish, self- centered 12 year old boy" thing to do. It was a perfectly normal 12 year old boy thing to do. I'm around that age (10-12) group a good bit (about 8 hours a week), so speaking from experience from preteen boys in general, they just want to fit in. I don't have my book with me, but if I'm not mistaken, Harry's already learned from Ron that even for a wizard, hearing voices is not a good thing. What Harry really wants is to fit in. And saying "Sure, Dumbledore, I've heard voices in the wall" is not going to help him fit in. Yes, from our adult perspectives, knowing the end of the story, telling Dumbledore right off would've been best. But Harry's just a little boy trying to fit in. On another topic, of characters you love, I'd like to add that, obviously, I love Harry himself. Harry aside, my favorite is Remus Lupin. He's just so good and kind and gentle. And I will NOT believe Evil!Lupin theories! Richelle [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Feb 1 19:37:35 2003 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 19:37:35 -0000 Subject: What's annoying about Harry (WAS: Characters you hate) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51382 Tom Wall wrote: > I REPLY: > Also, I don't see where the yellow flag comes from. I wrote "If Harry > WOULD just *tell* Dumbledore." When had nothing to do with it. IF > Harry had been sensible and told Dumbledore right away, much might > have been avoided. But luckily for us, Harry is not too sensible > (logical, but not sensible) - otherwise we wouldn't have had much of > a story. ;-) "When" has *everything* to do with it. Yellow flag is canon violation. You said Harry could've stopped most attacks if he had told Dumbledore - but he can't the first time he gets to talk to Dumbledore is after the attack on Nick, which is the second to last. Before that, Harry didn't *know* how to find Dumbledore's office - he tries to find it in PS and we are told that no-one is ever sent there and there are no signs saying "To Dumbledore's office --->". And I insist - what if Harry had told him about the voice? The important thing is finding the entrance to the Chamber, not knowing that the Basilisk is on the move - Dumbledore can probably guess that. However, please note that I did say "Pale" because Harry could've looked up Dumbledore in other ocasions (after some of the attacks, for example). Still, in your post you were speaking about the situation in Dumbledore's office, and by then stopping most attacks was out of the question (since they had already happened). > GREY WOLF WROTE: > I'm pretty sure that all the teachers had realised that > the monster was a basilisk by now (OK, all except Lockhart). > > I REPLY: > There's no canon to support that. Is that just a MD thing? It has nothing to do with MD (little of CoS has). Let me expose the facts: 1) the creature is the pet of Salazar Slytherin, famous parseltongue, whose heraldic symbol is a snake 2) the creature paralizes. I had figured myself that the creature was a basilisk after the attack on Mrs Norris, and I didn't even know point 1 at the time. Dumbledore has been through one series of attacks already. It would take an idiot not to know by then that the creature was a basilisk, after all the details Dumbledore has, and Dumbledore is *NOT* an idiot. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 1 19:18:32 2003 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 19:18:32 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Slytherins and the MoM References: <1044076172.5448.1358.m7@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <001601c2ca26$b6a17dc0$c57c0550@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 51383 Pip: > The idea that adults outside the Hogwarts environment share > Hagrid's "all dark wizards come from Slytherin" bias, or consider > it when deciding whom to trust, is not supported in the text. > When Arthur Weasley is introducing his co-workers, he doesn't > say a word about which House they belonged to. Which I think is a very important point when you think about what sort of occupation Slytherins might gravitate towards when they leave Hogwarts. If you're ambitious in the WW, then _the_ place to go is the Ministry - it's the sole source of political power and control-freakery. Must be _crawling_ with Slytherins. But although we know that Voldemort has his agents within the MoM, if _all_ the Slyths were supposed to be bad guys, then they'd pretty much be running the operation. Instead, the picture we get of Ministry wizards is that they have a strong sense of purpose and mission together with a great deal of personal loyalty. > It's true that Arthur has evidently influenced his children against > Slytherin. But that could be because he doesn't like the Malfoys, > and doesn't want his children influenced by them. That would be > reason enough to shun Slytherin without believing that all dark > wizards come from that House. Bearing in mind Arthur's department within the MoM, it was going to be inevitable that he would come into conflict with the Malfoys at some point. And clearly the Malfoys' prejudice is based on _wealth_ as well as lineage. BTW, has anyone else noticed the fact that MoM wages must be really low (a bit like the muggle civil service - guess where I work!). Despite his seniority, Arthur's lack of money is a standing joke, and even with both his and Percy's salary coming into the household, they are still badly off. Possibly Bagman's inability to pay his gambling debts is connected too! Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From sholden at flash.net Sat Feb 1 19:29:14 2003 From: sholden at flash.net (SHolden) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 13:29:14 -0600 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Who has the map? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51384 Kristen: I have been re-reading GoF lately and it made me stop and think. I don't believe anyone mentioned this after Barty's confession in the book, so who went and picked up the Marauders Map from Fake!Moody's office? Was it: a. Dumbledore? He was surprised by its existence, so he may have made a point to go get it. Me: I'd have to choose (A). Dumbledore knows that it's a *very* valuable tool. If I was a betting woman, I'd bet that Dumbledore kept it escpecially for reasons concerning Voldemort. Dumbledore knows that there are secret entrances to Hogwarts. I'm sure Sirius spilled everything, minus the map, to him that night in PoA. Now he has a map of Hogwarts that tells him where everyone is moving around. Since Wormtail is with Voldemort, he'd use Wormtail's knowledge of those entrances to possibly get him into Hogwarts and possibly into the Chamber of Secrets again. Just my thoughts...... Sarmi [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From manawydan at ntlworld.com Sat Feb 1 19:39:38 2003 From: manawydan at ntlworld.com (manawydan) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 19:39:38 -0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Wizards in wartime References: <1044122263.2558.29587.m9@yahoogroups.com> Message-ID: <002901c2ca29$a83af060$c57c0550@f3b7j4> No: HPFGUIDX 51385 Catlady: > This is something I have wondered a lot about lately. Even if the > wizarding folk don't go to Muggle wars, that War came to them: Does > the magic that hides Diagon Alley and Platform 9 3/4 from Muggles > also protect them from bombs dropped from airplanes? Could wizards > who lived in London Charm their houses to make all bombs and shrapnel > go somewhere else? Suppose they lived in flats? (DO wizards ever live > in flats?) I am so ignorant of history: were other places (besides > London) Blitzed? We know that at least some wizards keep abreast of what's going on in muggledom. If they knew that there was a war on, then there would have been time for a research wizard or several to come up with a charm to divert a bomb. Most bombing affected the cities (as someone else said, not just London) but I get the impression from the books that most wizards live in the country. So possibly not too much effect - with one exception. I don't think any wizards would have escaped Hiroshima. There wasn't any advance warning that that was coming and the wizards would have been incinerated along with the muggles. Even more off the wall suggestion - I wonder if that's why Grindelwald became a nuisance in 1945 - if he was so angry at the slaughter of wizards by muggles that he decided to get "revenge"... > They wouldn't have wanted to call attention to themselves by > violating the black-out. How were they affected by food shortages > and rationing? If the wizarding economy goes all the way down to > having its own wizarding farms to supply its own food, they might > have really cleaned up in the food black market. I think they would Would the MoM have let them? It would _really_ have given the game away. (I have this delightful mental picture of groups of spivvy wizards in London selling stuff on the black market!) > have wanted to defend their island from invasion, from self-interest > if not from patriotism: it seems to me that being ruled by an Army of > Occupation and a Gestapo would mean, at least, a LOT more eyes to > conceal magic from. Though the French, Polish, etc wizards may well have managed ok. And hopefully the German MoM would have advised them how best to avoid being seen. Cheers Ffred O Benryn wleth hyd Luch Reon Cymru yn unfryd gerhyd Wrion Gwret dy Cymry yghymeiri From srsiriusblack at aol.com Sat Feb 1 19:53:05 2003 From: srsiriusblack at aol.com (srsiriusblack at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 14:53:05 EST Subject: [HPforGrownups] Quirrel dead? Message-ID: <18a.1584f897.2b6d7fa1@aol.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51386 In a message dated 01/02/2003 13:29:46 Eastern Standard Time, trondmm-hp4gu at crusaders.no writes: > 3. He's alive, and we meet him briefly without any connection with the > plot. > > Again, I'll have to ask: Why? I mean, if you choose to bring back > somebody from beyond the grave, why would you do it for something > that's completely irrelevant for the story? Seeing Quirrel again would > be a shocking surprise for almost every reader, and if we just see him > briefly in a single chapter, then never hear from him again, I'd feel > pretty cheated. > > 4. He's alive and will be a major part of a future plot. > > I've already said how disgusted I'll be if this happens. > > > Did I forget any? > > > Now, if I remember correctly, the "we can't prove he really died"-theory > comes from Dumbledore's comment that Voldy just left him to die, and > that this doesn't rule out the possibility that someone saved his life. > > That may be so, but what if we look at the whole situation? Here we have > an eleven year old boy who's just found out that his teacher has been > possessed, and that had to fight for his life against him. When he wakes > up, Dumbledore tells him that the teacher was left to die. He must > realize that Harry will think that this mean Quirrel actually did die. > Isn't it spectacularly cruel of him to leave out the fact that he > survived, and just let Harry think he was killed? Unless you subscribe > to the evil Dumbledore theory, this just doesn't seem like him at all. > > I mean, try to imagine the principal of a muggle school entering a class > of eleven year olds to tell them that their teacher has been the victim > of a robbery. That she was stabbed and left to die. I would absolutely > expect her to tell the class about it if the teacher actually survived > the stabbing. Wouldn't you? > > Anyway, there are also an incident outside canon that could make it > difficoult to bring him back, even if JKR might have wanted to > initially. In the movie, there is absolutely no doubt that Quirrel died, > so JKR would probably think twice about bringing him back. His part > would probably be pretty important if he returns, something that only > increases Warner's headache, as that makes it even more difficoult to > cut out Quirrel from future movies. > Ok... again, my only point is that if he were alive- and mind I was just following on the thread that he *could* be- he would probably be in St. Mungos. Now the reason this could be a part of future books in my twisted mind is that I want to go inside St. Mungos very much. I have a sneaking suspicion as it has been brought up a few times in the books- esp. surrounding Neville's parents- that we may get to enter there. But how? There are a few ways I can see... Number One, of course most obviously would be something to do with Neville and his parents... Maybe Neville comes back to Hogwarts after the summer holidays and tells Harry about visiting his parents there- this would also allow for Neville and Harry to bond more and for Neville to become more of an important character which would please many of us Neville-sympathisers. Neviile would finally tell Harry about his parents and if Quirrel were alive, Neville would say that he saw him [Quirrel] in hospital- 'and he looked a right mess' Number two, which would be far more interesting is if the scar becomes more of an issue. Rita Skeeter seems to think it is and if she becomes the baddie with the quill, she could exploit Harry even more. Harry would go to St. Mungos. - Which would be very interesting. So basically, I don't care if Quirrel is dead or alive, I just want to know more about St. Mungos.... and I think having him there would give a nice plot twist if we ever get inside hospital walls. -Snuffles "All men dream: but not equally. Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that it was vanity: but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dreams with open eyes, to make it possible. This I did." T.E. Lawrence- Seven Pillars of Wisdom [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Feb 1 19:59:03 2003 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 19:59:03 -0000 Subject: Who told James about the Prank? WAS: Re: Harry HAS Two Parents In-Reply-To: <20030131200145.89507.qmail@web20415.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51387 > Pip wrote: > >The only > > different things > > appears to be that a)there are no other marauders > > around to stop > > Lupin and b) James has learnt about this from > > someone other than > > Sirius. I'm presenting you with a theory that it is > > b), not a) that > > was important, and the 'someone' was Lily. For all that it's worth, I'm going to muddy the waters by throwing in another possibility: James wasn't told of the prank by anyone: he saw Snape going into the tunnel in the marauders map, and realised at that moment that something was terribly wrong. So, no Lily, Peter or unknown third persons - just a little common sense. :-P Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From trondmm-hp4gu at crusaders.no Sat Feb 1 19:47:13 2003 From: trondmm-hp4gu at crusaders.no (Trond Michelsen) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 20:47:13 +0100 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: What's annoying about Harry (WAS: Characters you hate) In-Reply-To: ; from greywolf1@jazzfree.com on Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 07:37:35PM -0000 References: Message-ID: <20030201204713.I5483@crusaders.no> No: HPFGUIDX 51388 On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 07:37:35PM -0000, Grey Wolf wrote: >>> I'm pretty sure that all the teachers had realised that >>> the monster was a basilisk by now (OK, all except Lockhart). >> There's no canon to support that. Is that just a MD thing? > It has nothing to do with MD (little of CoS has). Let me expose the > facts: > 1) the creature is the pet of Salazar Slytherin, famous parseltongue, > whose heraldic symbol is a snake > 2) the creature paralizes. > > I had figured myself that the creature was a basilisk after the attack > on Mrs Norris, and I didn't even know point 1 at the time. Dumbledore > has been through one series of attacks already. It would take an idiot > not to know by then that the creature was a basilisk, after all the > details Dumbledore has, and Dumbledore is *NOT* an idiot. Aren't you forgetting about Hagrid's expultion? If it was common knowledge that the creature HAD to be a Basilisk, then why didn't anyone realize that Hagrid and his Acromantula was innocent when he was expelled? Hagrid was even arrested after the second to last attack, and even though Dumbledore protested, he made no comment about how the creature would have to be completely different from the creature Hagrid had as a pet when he supposedly opened the chamber the last time. -- Trond Michelsen From Malady579 at hotmail.com Sat Feb 1 20:10:48 2003 From: Malady579 at hotmail.com (Melody ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 20:10:48 -0000 Subject: What's annoying about Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51389 First: I was so waiting for Catherine to post in defense of Harry, and she did not let me down. I must say I greatly agree, which brings me to my second point. Second: Tom wrote: > But it's *boring* to always take that perspective. If I wanted that > perspective, I wouldn't be on this list. I'd be re-reading the > series all the time, which, ironically, I am anyways. ;-) It's much > more interesting to try to look at things another way. Yes it is interesting to walk around a work of art and look from different perspectives, *but* it is rather rude to say that any certain perspective (I assume you mean the stand in front of the art and comment what it basically is) is "boring." You tell us you are on the list to learn perspectives, well that is Catherine's and Grey Wolf's perspective. I am sorry you do not think it high quality enough, but it is honest and heart felt. If you disagree, which really what fun is the site if we all agree, then by all means post your perspectives. Just please don't call your detractors' views boring. Makes you seem very high and mighty. Maybe you meant to say, their view was obvious. Well - to be honest, is anything so obvious in HP? Does JKR ever write something completely truthful? Maybe your outcry is that they are being dubbed into believing what JKR *wants* them to believe, and they are not looking close enough for the clues of true character. But boring? My dear, this series, no matter which perspective you chose, is not boring. How else could we post so much on this site, if this series was so black and white? But, one thing I think you need to understand. You can't have the "black" without the "white". > What I find most annoying about Harry is his > incredible stubbornness, his procrastination, his > belief, along Snapian lines, that despite everyone's > efforts to safeguard him, he's above the rules. > And I can't *STAND* the way he refuses to listen to > reason once he's had his mind made up. Reason. Reason! Reason would never of given Harry, at the tender age of *eleven*, and invisibility cloak. Reason would not of given his a lute for Christmas. Reason would of caused Hogwarts to be closed in CoS. Reason would have Gryffindor loose their rainy Quidditch in CoS. Reason would have Sirius back in Azkaban. Reason would have realized that no contract is final, and Harry did not *have* to be a Triwiz contender. Really is Harry being taught "reason" is a good thing? See- a Gryffindor fights of morality and goodness at any cost. They are not the lovers of fair play but rather the victory of good over evil. They do not bend the rules blindly for their own glory or prestige, but for a higher cause. A cause for humility itself. Let me get to your examples... Tom: > PS/SS: Hagrid repeatedly tells HHR that it's > "rubbish" that Snape would try to steal the stone. > Do they listen? Nope. They instead spend the whole > time trying to falsely prove that he is a thief and > killer. Oh, so the fact they were on the trail of the *wrong* thief is what is wrong? Or is it the fact they were on the trail at all bother you? Hagrid told them Snape was innocent of the charges they accused him if, but honestly, the only reason you even believe Hagrid is because *Dumbledore* says Snape is on the side of good. Really, given how JKR has written Snape so far, I find it interesting Harry, who is so "loyal" to Dumbledore, still has his doubts. And besides, when is Hagrid ever reasonable. > CoS: First off, if Harry would just *tell* Dumbledore > that he hears a strange voice, then we'd have gotten > through the whole thing a lot quicker, IMHO. Quicker? Oh, what fun is *that*. :) > It's > largely due to Harry's stubbornness that the attacks > continue, whereas if he'd been honest in the first place, > the connection that he's a Parselmouth would have enabled > the staff to solve the problem. So, the fact Harry can hear "voices" and talk parseltongue (which they *did* know about, by the way, when Harry went to Dumbledore?s office. Snape learned it in the duel club.) So what they did not know, and may not of, was to make the connection as to why Harry heard voices. Now, these same professors are completely ignoring MB&WTFT where frankly, it is *obvious* the creature is a basilisk. I mean, the kids are turning to stone!! What would make them go, "hey, Harry hears voices, he can talk to snakes, this is a basilisk." They are dense enough to ignore the fact that the only long-living creature in the WW animal world that turn people to stone is a *basilisk." A basilisk that just happens to be a snake that Slytherin *loves.* Yea- they are quite dense themselves. > PoA: In the Shrieking Shack, it really bothers me that, > first off, Harry and Ron refuse to listen to Lupin and Black > because they're both too stubborn to entertain the notions > that a) Black may be innocent, and b) Scabbers may be more > than he seems to be. That annoyed you? That seems very human to me. They had lived with this rat, a rat with no magical ability to date, so why would they, being young wizards, think anything more of Scabbers. The pet shop lady said he was an ordinary rat. They have every reason to believe that. But can you honestly say at the age of 13, you would of been so open? You just saw a very large, very dangerous dog drag your best friend into a tree and break his leg. You get there to find out it is in fact the person that you believe *betrayed* your parents. You have ever reason to believe that too. McGonagall, Hagrid, Flitwick, and Fudge all confirmed this. They are a group to be believed on most occasions I think. So why, would you think Black and Lupin are doing anything else but trying to talk themselves out of their crimes? Really, I think the fact they did listen quite refreshing. I would think most people would have done what Snape did. Well...what he seemed to do there upon first read. ;) > But what REALLY annoys me is the way > that they turn these same criticisms on Snape once he starts > behaving the same way they were a few minutes ago. And then > they attack him for it. Unbelievable. Oh tell me you are joking. Snape is, after all, acting like a person that is not taking reason into account, which is precisely what you are complaining about in this post. Shack!Snape presented in that scene not a drop of reason in him. Also I have to MD comment, Snape was *trying* to goad Harry into his actions. Snape wanted Harry to react, he just did not expect Ron and Hermione to do so also. > I can't express how many times I've read these books and > thought to myself "No, Harry, NO, just TELL Dumbledore, the > truth" or "just LISTEN to Lupin, what's WRONG with you, it's > clearly you who doesn't know what he's talking about!!!" He is a boy. Boys can be a little thick headed at times. Ok, so can girls... All I *can* hope is that Harry chooses wisely the times he listens and chooses to ignore. For one should not always listen to your elders just because they are elder. > I guess ultimately what makes Harry such a compelling > character is that he's real, and real people don't always > make the best decisions. And that's why I love him and his > friends so much, and that's why I keep reading. But that > doesn't make his bad qualities any less annoying. No it doesn't. I am glad he is annoying to a degree. Gives his character something to do, and reinforced what JKR wants us to believe. He is just a boy...with an extraordinary past. Melody From thomasmwall at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 20:12:11 2003 From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 20:12:11 -0000 Subject: What's annoying about Harry (WAS: Characters you hate) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51390 I WROTE: Also, I don't see where the yellow flag comes from. I wrote "If Harry WOULD just *tell* Dumbledore." When had nothing to do with it. IF Harry had been sensible and told Dumbledore right away, much might have been avoided. But luckily for us, Harry is not too sensible (logical, but not sensible) - otherwise we wouldn't have had much of a story. ;-) GREY WOLF REPLIED: "When" has *everything* to do with it. Yellow flag is canon violation. You said Harry could've stopped most attacks if he had told Dumbledore - but he can't the first time he gets to talk to Dumbledore is after the attack on Nick, which is the second to last. I REPLY: Hah hah - Is there a flag for fact violation? ;-) I never said anything about the scene in Dumbledore's office. GREY WOLF WROTE: However, please note that I did say "Pale" because Harry could've looked up Dumbledore in other ocasions (after some of the attacks, for example). I REPLY: Exactly - he could have told Dumbledore at any time after the attack on Mrs. Norris, starting with the scene in Lockhart's office, when Snappe correctly points out that Harry is not being totally honest. GREY WOLF WROTE: I'm pretty sure that all the teachers had realised that the monster was a basilisk by now (OK, all except Lockhart). I REPLY: There's no canon to support that. Is that just a MD thing? GREY WOLF REPLIED TO MY REPLY: It has nothing to do with MD (little of CoS has). Let me expose the facts: 1) the creature is the pet of Salazar Slytherin, famous parseltongue, whose heraldic symbol is a snake 2) the creature paralizes. I had figured myself that the creature was a basilisk after the attack on Mrs Norris, and I didn't even know point 1 at the time. Dumbledore has been through one series of attacks already. It would take an idiot not to know by then that the creature was a basilisk, after all the details Dumbledore has, and Dumbledore is *NOT* an idiot. END QUOTE. I REPLY: I'm not sure I agree with you on that. 1) The Chamber of Secrets is a legend that Binns disputes in the "present" day: "It is a myth! It does not exist! There is not a shred of evidence that Slytherin ever built so much as a secret broom cupboard!" Professor Binns, CoS 152. Even after Riddle's attacks, Binns denies that the Chamber exists. Which means that it is far from established fact in the WW that any of the teachers knew anything. It is definitely not in canon. 2) Hagrid is booted as a result of the first attacks, and returned as gamekeeper only because of Dumbledore, who argues Hagrid's case to Dippet. But does that mean that Dippet and the previous staff (sans Dumbledore) thought an acromantula could have caused the attack on Myrtle? Doubtful, as an acromantula can't paralyze. Therefore, there was and is (until the end of CoS) serious debate within the WW over the existence of the Chamber, it's nature, AND its contents as well. You're inferring from the facts that we, as readers, know, that THEY as teachers must've also known what was going on. And that inference is not backed up by canon at all. 3) Dumbledore, it would appear, knows, at least, that the Chamber exists: "It means," said Dumbledore," that the Chamber of Secrets is indeed open again." (CoS 180) But never in canon is it indicated that Dumbledore knew what was inside the chamber. "No second year could have done this," said Dumbledore firmly. "It would take Dark Magic of the most advanced -" (Cos 142) In fact, Dumbledore's suggestion that dark magic could have been involved indicates that, far from being certain as to the contents of the chamber, he and the rest of the staff only have guesses. -Tom From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Feb 1 20:22:59 2003 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 20:22:59 -0000 Subject: What's annoying about Harry (WAS: Characters you hate) In-Reply-To: <20030201204713.I5483@crusaders.no> Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51391 Trond Michelsen wrote: > On Sat, Feb 01, 2003 at 07:37:35PM -0000, Grey Wolf wrote: > >>> I'm pretty sure that all the teachers had realised that > >>> the monster was a basilisk by now (OK, all except Lockhart). > >> There's no canon to support that. Is that just a MD thing? > > > It has nothing to do with MD (little of CoS has). Let me expose the > > facts: > > 1) the creature is the pet of Salazar Slytherin, famous parseltongue, > > whose heraldic symbol is a snake > > 2) the creature paralizes. > > > > I had figured myself that the creature was a basilisk after the attack > > on Mrs Norris, and I didn't even know point 1 at the time. Dumbledore > > has been through one series of attacks already. It would take an idiot > > not to know by then that the creature was a basilisk, after all the > > details Dumbledore has, and Dumbledore is *NOT* an idiot. > > Aren't you forgetting about Hagrid's expultion? If it was common > knowledge that the creature HAD to be a Basilisk, then why didn't anyone > realize that Hagrid and his Acromantula was innocent when he was > expelled? > > Hagrid was even arrested after the second to last attack, and even > though Dumbledore protested, he made no comment about how the creature > would have to be completely different from the creature Hagrid had > as a pet when he supposedly opened the chamber the last time. > > -- > Trond Michelsen I already made a case for this, so I skiped the reasoning - I'm sorry, I tend to forget that not everyone has heard all my arguments from time to time. Let's look at it the other way round: why would anyone suspect of Hagrid's spider to begin with? After all, most spiders don't paralize, they kill outright, and tend to leave bite marks when they attack, don't they? Yes, but not exactly. For some reason, folklore giant spiders tend to paralize as well as kill when they want - like she-lob, from LotR. That fact, coupled with the dodgy justice system of the MoM and the fact that the acromantula scaped (so no-one could be sure that it *wasn't*) is what got Hagrid into problems the first time around. However, Dumbledore *knew* it hadn't been Hagrid's pet - he trust him enough (and I have the feelings that acromantulas are deadly poisonous, not just paralizing poisonous). And of course, I didn't say it was common knowledge - I said the teachers knew - probably because they had been briefed by Dumbledore, who *has* to know - as I said. Finally, Hagrid wasn't arrested in CoS because he was suspect (Fudge admits as much) but because he "has to do something". Hagrid doesn't even get a trial this time around, he's simply thrown into prison "just in case". Since Fudge's mind was already made up, anything Dumbledore could say would be innefective. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From susannahlm at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 20:44:09 2003 From: susannahlm at yahoo.com (derannimer ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 20:44:09 -0000 Subject: Who told James? Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51392 Grey Wolf wrote: >For all that it's worth, I'm going to muddy the waters by throwing >in another possibility: James wasn't told of the prank by anyone: he >saw Snape going into the tunnel in the marauders map, and realised >at that moment that something was terribly wrong. Now me: No, that doesn't work; Lupin says "your father, who'd heard what Sirius had done." Since he said *heard,* that strongly rules out James discovering the Prank by himself. It sounds like he, well, heard it. Derannimer (who thought Elkins's "Peter helped set up the Prank" scenario is a scenario she could really go for) From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Feb 1 20:51:27 2003 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 20:51:27 -0000 Subject: What's annoying about Harry (WAS: Characters you hate) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51393 Tom Wall wrote: > Exactly - he could have told Dumbledore at any time after the attack > on Mrs. Norris, starting with the scene in Lockhart's office, when > Snappe correctly points out that Harry is not being totally honest. But my main point still holds: telling Dumbledore about the voice in the walls would've been useless. (I'm tired of repeating myself - fetch my arguments from my previous post). > GREY WOLF WROTE: > I'm pretty sure that all the teachers had realised that > the monster was a basilisk by now (OK, all except Lockhart). > > I REPLY: > There's no canon to support that. Is that just a MD thing? > > GREY WOLF REPLIED TO MY REPLY: > It has nothing to do with MD (little of CoS has). Let me expose the > facts: > 1) the creature is the pet of Salazar Slytherin, famous parseltongue, > whose heraldic symbol is a snake > 2) the creature paralizes. > > I had figured myself that the creature was a basilisk after the > attack on Mrs Norris, and I didn't even know point 1 at the time. > Dumbledore has been through one series of attacks already. It would > take an idiot not to know by then that the creature was a basilisk, > after all the details Dumbledore has, and Dumbledore is *NOT* an > idiot. > END QUOTE. > > I REPLY: > I'm not sure I agree with you on that. > > 1) The Chamber of Secrets is a legend that Binns disputes in > the "present" day: > > "It is a myth! It does not exist! There is not a shred of evidence > that Slytherin ever built so much as a secret broom cupboard!" > Professor Binns, CoS 152. > > Even after Riddle's attacks, Binns denies that the Chamber exists. > Which means that it is far from established fact in the WW that any > of the teachers knew anything. It is definitely not in canon. Binns doesn't seem to be able to learn. Whatever he knew when he died is what he still believes, and it seems he never changes opinion. Consider my statement revised: the teachers I'm referring to are the heads of the houses (i.e. the ones that were talking toghether just after Ginny's disapearance, and the ones Dumbledore would inform of the situation). > 2) Hagrid is booted as a result of the first attacks, and returned as > gamekeeper only because of Dumbledore, who argues Hagrid's case to > Dippet. But does that mean that Dippet and the previous staff (sans > Dumbledore) thought an acromantula could have caused the attack on > Myrtle? Doubtful, as an acromantula can't paralyze. > > Therefore, there was and is (until the end of CoS) serious debate > within the WW over the existence of the Chamber, it's nature, AND its > contents as well. > > You're inferring from the facts that we, as readers, know, that THEY > as teachers must've also known what was going on. And that inference > is not backed up by canon at all. The acromantula was never captured. They cannot know what sort of spider it was (or even if it *was* a spider). So Dippet might have assumed that they had captured the correct person. YOU are the one who is using outside information (i.e. that the creature Hagrid had was an acromantula) to draw conclusions. The people who really matter - Dumbledore and the heads of house - knew that the creature was a basilisk, and that the chamber existed (as you point out yourself on point three - or do you think that Dumbledore would've kept the information from Snape and mcGonagall?). I am ready to admit that *maybe* the only ones that really knew where those three, but then my perception of the intelligence of Sprout and Flitwick would be diminished if they cannot put the facts toghether. > 3) Dumbledore, it would appear, knows, at least, that the > Chamber exists: > > "It means," said Dumbledore," that the Chamber of Secrets is indeed > open again." (CoS 180) > > But never in canon is it indicated that Dumbledore knew what was > inside the chamber. There are many things that are never spelled out in the books, and nevertheless can be inferred without making big leaps of faith. Dumbledore's knowledge of the creature is one of those, in my eyes- after all, it is *very* obvious. Dipplet didn't *want* to believe that the Chamber of Secrets existed, but once you accept that the chamber exists and that Slytherin's creature is inside, a creature that turns people into statues, it really takes an idiot not to make the final connection, as I said. The rest of the WW might not want to believe in the chamber, but Dumbledore does and, him being quite intelligent, *had* to know what the creature was. > "No second year could have done this," said Dumbledore firmly. "It > would take Dark Magic of the most advanced -" (Cos 142) > > In fact, Dumbledore's suggestion that dark magic could have been > involved indicates that, far from being certain as to the contents of > the chamber, he and the rest of the staff only have guesses. > > -Tom NO, he means every word. What sort of spell would *you* use to *imitate* the *gaze of the basilisk*? Answer: "Dark Magic of the most advanced...". Thus, the conclusion: no second year could've done it. But the Basilisk comes pre-enchanted, so to speak. Dumbledore works on need-to-know basis, and he didn't want to tell to the world at large at that point "only Voldemort's kind knows that spell, but it's besides the point because I know that what attacked this cat was a basilisk - yes, you heard me well, there is a basilisk, the king of snakes, he-of-killing-stare free on the school, it's roaming and hasn't had anything to eat for the last 1000 years". That wouldn't have been a good idea, IMO. Hope that helps, Grey Wolf From thomasmwall at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 20:52:31 2003 From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 20:52:31 -0000 Subject: What's annoying about Harry In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51394 Melody wrote: I am sorry you do not think it high quality enough, but it is honest and heart felt. If you disagree, which really what fun is the site if we all agree, then by all means post your perspectives. Just please don't call your detractors' views boring. Makes you seem very high and mighty. I reply: I don't believe I've detracted from anyone here. And I certainly haven't criticized the quality of anyone's posts. Quite to the contrary, I have complimented both Grey Wolf and Catherine on the well-thought out nature of their posts. I am sorry if you interpreted my comments as high and mighty. That was not at all my intent, and I feel bad that my words could have been interpreted that way. As you conclude in your subsequent paragraph, perhaps I should have said "obvious," or that I believed that they were being "dubbed:" well, sort of, but not like that. My point was that the series is already written from Harry's perspective. The things that Harry does that are annoying, we know why he does them. When he's stubborn, we know why. When he's disrespectful, we know why. We already know why Harry behaves the way that he does, because everything's from his point of view. So, when someone speculates that Harry is out of line, that person is going out on a limb... and they know it in advance. All I'm saying is that the people who defend Harry really don't have to. I understand that they want to, and that the defenses are heartfelt. But it's not necessary, because we all are already acquainted with Harry's position. Tom: PS/SS: Hagrid repeatedly tells HHR that it's "rubbish" that Snape would try to steal the stone. Do they listen? Nope. They instead spend the whole time trying to falsely prove that he is a thief and killer. Melody wrote: Oh, so the fact they were on the trail of the *wrong* thief is what is wrong? Or is it the fact they were on the trail at all bother you? I reply: What's wrong is that they, having no evidence of any sort, accused an innocent man of committing two very heinous crimes. And it sets the backdrop for the whole story through GoF. HHR continue to accuse Snape of all sorts of vile things, and he's never guilty. What's annoying about it is that they continue doing it - in other words, they don't learn from the previous mistakes, they just keep making the same ones. Melody wrote: So, the fact Harry can hear "voices" and talk parseltongue (which they *did* know about, by the way, when Harry went to Dumbledore?s office. Snape learned it in the duel club.) I reply: That's right, they did know about it in Dumbledore's office. But they could have known about it a lot sooner. And if Harry had been forthcoming a little earlier, the problem would have been solved. Granted, not as much fun for us readers. ;-) Melody wrote: But can you honestly say at the age of 13, you would of been so open? I reply: If I was 13 and learning about animagi in class? Yes, yes I think I might have been a little more receptive to explanations concerning animagi. I wrote: But what REALLY annoys me is the way that they turn these same criticisms on Snape once he starts behaving the same way they were a few minutes ago. And then they attack him for it. Unbelievable. Melody wrote: Oh tell me you are joking. Snape is, after all, acting like a person that is not taking reason into account, which is precisely what you are complaining about in this post. Shack!Snape presented in that scene not a drop of reason in him. I reply: Exactly - Snape would not appear to be reasonable, and Harry's exact criticism is that he won't listen to explanations - when HHR, five minutes before, had refused to listen to explanations. The way you see it, HHR's stubbornness is refreshing, and Snape's is annoying. But they're both a refusal to listen to explanations... except one is good, and one is bad. Again, the only reason we see one as good and one as bad is because we're privy to the inner workings of Harry's 13-year old mind, and we're not privy to Snape's. So, Harry being stubborn = endearing. Snape being stubborn = insane. That's what I'm talking about, and that's one of the things that annoy me about Harry's behavior. -Tom, who really does like Harry, but is annoyed by him from time to time, and who was thankfully donned some mental armor before he wrote the first post in this thread, titled it, and then ever so evilly hit the 'send' button. ;-) From catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk Sat Feb 1 20:58:07 2003 From: catherine at cator-manor.demon.co.uk (Catherine Coleman) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 20:58:07 +0000 Subject: [HPforGrownups] Re: Dumbledore and Favoritism in CoS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51395 In message , "Tom Wall " writes >Look, this brings me to a larger point: as a reader, I too can find a >million and one reasons why HHR are brave, loyal, independent, >selfless, civic-minded heroes who are deserving of every House Cup, >every Quidditch Cup, and every award Hogwarts can offer, plus the >Order of Merlin First Class to boot. That's *easy.* Anyone with >a copy of the books could do this without any independent thought >whatsoever, because that's precisely what we're *supposed* to be >thinking. >In other words, defending Harry is not a difficult task, since JKR >has already made the case more eloquently than any of us could: >because she deliberately wrote the books from that exact perspective. > Hmm, not quite sure I agree with you on this. Yes, the perspective is obviously slanted towards HRH and there is a narrative bias against the Slytherins and anyone else Harry doesn't particularly like - and I also think that JKR expects us to love Harry, because she does so herself. But I also don't think that JKR writes in such a black and white way as you imply, particularly with regard to the characters who are generally perceived to be "good". I can't actually think of one "good" character who is portrayed in such a whiter-than-white, cardboard cutout way to the extent that everyone without exception would find nothing bad to say about them. I would definitely include the trio in this - I think we get a warts and all impression of all three of them. We are certainly aware of all their personality defects; and there are scenes when all three of them don't appear in such a brilliant light. I think these give a pretty balanced view of them all, *especially* Harry, as we are more privy to his thoughts than the others. So if they are portrayed in this way, and we can all see good and bad in them, why shouldn't we discuss it? As you can see, there are people around who don't share my views, just as there are those who don't share yours. And I don't think that it's fair to say that taking the less obvious view is in some way more challenging and therefore superior to the common perception, as I would argue that there is no such thing. In my previous post, I was trying to defend Harry against very specific charges which I didn't agree with. I don't think he is particularly self-centred, or thoughtless, or nosey, and I want to be able to say why, without being told that it is a waste of time and boring (no matter how nicely). I personally don't think it is a waste of time, because even if, as you suggest we are "supposed to be thinking" that HHR are whiter than white (which I obviously dispute), the fact that is that everyone has much more complicated opinions about them than that. If you'll notice, much as I love him, I wasn't saying that Harry was perfect, and I obviously don't believe it (as I have already said). There are times when he drives me nuts, just like everyone else does - but I agree with Marina - don't you think we'd hate him if he was perfect? Again, I'm sorry that you think this perspective is "boring", but I refuse to sit on my thumbs and not respond while a character I am very fond of is attacked. And, to be perfectly honest, a character discussion which centres upon Harry comes up so rarely that I have to jump in when I can. :-) Catherine From thomasmwall at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 21:20:53 2003 From: thomasmwall at yahoo.com (Tom Wall ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 21:20:53 -0000 Subject: What's annoying about Harry (WAS: Characters you hate) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51396 Grey Wolf wrote: But my main point still holds: telling Dumbledore about the voice in the walls would've been useless. I reply: Hey, once you're convinced, you're convinced, eh? ;-) That's okay, me too. I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. Grey Wolf wrote: The people who really matter - Dumbledore and the heads of house - knew that the creature was a basilisk, and that the chamber existed (as you point out yourself on point three - or do you think that Dumbledore would've kept the information from Snape and mcGonagall?). I reply: I believe that canon suggests that McGonagall, at least, knew that the Chamber definitely existed from the continuation of the same quote I gave in point three. As for Snape, we can only assume. But there is no canon to support that Dumbledore knew it was a basilisk. Grey Wolf wrote: And of course, I didn't say it was common knowledge - I said the teachers knew - probably because they had been briefed by Dumbledore, who *has* to know - as I said. and Grey Wolf wrote: There are many things that are never spelled out in the books, and nevertheless can be inferred without making big leaps of faith. I reply: Yes, they can be inferred. But since an inference is not in canon, an inference doesn't hold. Unless you can support your inference with canon, which you're not doing. Canon does not tell us that Dumbledore knew it was a basilisk. Period. As for Hagrid getting expelled, although we know that Aragog escaped, there is no canon to indicate how the decision was arrived at. I wonder how that worked out - there's no monster, Riddle says it was Hagrid, Dippet takes Riddle's word and expels the poor kid? Hmm. -Tom From greywolf1 at jazzfree.com Sat Feb 1 21:59:53 2003 From: greywolf1 at jazzfree.com (Grey Wolf ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 21:59:53 -0000 Subject: What's annoying about Harry (WAS: Characters you hate) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51397 Tom Wall wrote: > Grey Wolf wrote: > But my main point still holds: telling Dumbledore about the voice in > the walls would've been useless. > > I reply: > Hey, once you're convinced, you're convinced, eh? ;-) > That's okay, me too. I guess we're going to have to > agree to disagree on this one. You know, I still haven't seen your explanation of how, exactly, would Harry telling Dumbledore about the voice would help - I've given you my arguments, but have yet to see yours. But if you want to disagree, it's OK with me. > Tom insists: > Yes, they can be inferred. But since an inference is not in canon, an > inference doesn't hold. Unless you can support your inference with > canon, which you're not doing. Canon does not tell us that Dumbledore > knew it was a basilisk. Period. > > -Tom It's interesting that you, that don't even support with arguments your argument of Harry telling Dumbledore about the voice are telling me that I need to find a line where Dumbledore says "I knew it was a basilisk all along" to accept my point. Welcome to Theory Bay, where the ships navigate the pleasent waters and the hurricane Jo is fast approaching. Get used to outlandish theories, because they are commonplace in this list. If you're going to cry "no canon" every time someone comes up with a new theory, you're going to be posting a lot of one-liners. :) As theories go, in fact, my theory about Dumbledore's knowledge of the basilisk is one of the strongest (right now I mean - while no-one pokes holes in it, of course). Shielding behind the "no canon" is not a good idea, because the simplest answer to it is "canon doesn't state that he didn't know, either". After all, Dumbledore never says "Oh, so it was a basilisk - I had wondered". And he is quite quick to admit ignorance (as in GoF, when he admits not knowing about Crouch!Moody). Oh, and in case you are not yet convinced, I've got a little more circunstantial evidence - how did Dumbledore know that Harry was going to need Fawkes and the sword if he didn't know that it was a basilisk? In the other books, it is him or Snape that come to the rescue (i.e. humans), but in this case he sends a bird that *just happens* to be immune to the basilisk's gaze, peck out eyes and can cure its venom. It certainly looks as if Dumbledore knew something, didn't he? Hope that helps, Grey Wolf & Melody From jodel at aol.com Sat Feb 1 22:12:49 2003 From: jodel at aol.com (jodel at aol.com) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 17:12:49 EST Subject: Neo-racism in the WW (was; Not Slytherin, Not Slytherin) Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51398 Pippin suggests; >>It could be that Riddle, with his "intimate friends" was responsible for re-introducing anti-Muggle prejudice into Slytherin House.<< This is certainly the model for the reading I have come round to. Because the whole general "flavor" of the bigotry which we are seeing in the current day Slytherins is excessive to what it would be if it were a long-established viewpoint. The kind of bigotry you get after an uninterupted 1000 years is the sort of unthinking acceptance that Ron shows over the enslavement of the House Elves. Totally unfair, but also totally accepted and *never* examined. I'm sure the Slyths can give you detailed, "proven" evidence for all the reasons one should despise "mudbloods". I posted my interpretation of the kind of faction that enlisted Tom Riddle as a poster child of the "Ancient linage" hard-liners earlier this week. I've since given the matter a little more thought. I suspect that they were prepared to use his halfblood status as a selling point to make their message more palatable to the WW in general. I now think that Grindlewald's geezers were a political faction which had intended a fully legitimate *political* takeover (well, it would have been dirty politics, but it could have been made to *look* legitimate) of the MoM and its policies. With them as, they believed, his "handlers". (More fools they.) In the end, it was their private lives, in which they tended to regard the regulations that governed the use of Dark magic as pretaining to everybody else, which brought their leaders down in a storm of tabloid noteriety, after which they sunk without a trace. Grindlewald is only a name on a chocolate frog card today. If their plans had come to fruition, there would have been no Voldemort, and Tom Riddle would now be Minister of Magic, actively and effectively furthering the aims and consolidating the advantages of Malfoy and his ilk. Unfortunately, their poster child was more intelligent, and less grateful than they gave him credit for and at some point he saw through their intentions. It must have been a profound disillusionment. His utter contempt toward wizards is just as clear to the reader as his resentment of Muggles. Young Tom decided that he did not choose to have his talents exploited for the sake of a lot of has-been loosers. No, *he* would use *them*. He did not pass the information of the Chamber and its monster on to his mentor. And at the earliest convenience, he shed the lot of them and their plans for him with a simple public act of private murder, thereby killing four birds with three AKs. (Before the geezers had their wits about them to figure out what had just been set in motion, he had gotten one of them to arrange for his dissapearance, and probably obliviated the old coot.) But he knew their party line backwards and forward and could quote it chapter and verse. And when he decided it was time to make his move towards setting up his own rule, he was able to reel them and their decendents back in terms they certainly could, but probably would not refuse. He has no intentions of fulfilling his promises to them. When they have served his purposes, he will slaughter them like sheep. (Side note: I find myself wondering if the elderly Nott is one of the last of the original geezers who had taken him in -- and vice versa -- when he was a boy at Hogwarts?) The sort of bigoted mindset against Muggle-borns that we are seeing in canon is so closely parallel to the kind of racism we've seen in this countrty *since* the Reconstruction that it is difficult *not* to regard it as having much the same source -- the bitter anger and resentment of the *losing* side in a major conflict who have solidified and focused their views of everything that is wrong with the world on a single issue. This kind of focus doesn't last over a thousand years. It is clearly a more recent inrtoduction which has latched onto some [perhaps spuriously] similar historical detail *as a justification*. I do not know whether Rowling had any specific example in mind when she built her anti-Muggle biases and assigned them to the fanatic pureblood faction, and there is no question that the Eurpoean models were a lot closer to her own vantage point. But it is the American model which it appears to conform most closely to. And her Death Eaters resemble the Nazi party a damn sight less closely than they do the Klan. And the pro-Muggle faction look a lot like the bleeding heart faction vis-a-vis the racial issues. Complete with the patronizing "aren't they clever, bless them!" attitude. And this didn't happen by accident. The glimpses we've gotten of the textbook version of wizarding history with it's oficial view that "we hid ourselves to avoid being exploited" is specifically geared to teach young wizards that the "big bad Muggle" can't possibly pose any kind of threat to *him*. I get the distinct impression that at the time seclusion was imposed, the average wizarding view of Muggles was probably a lot closer to Ron's attitudes concerning Giants. In short, I believe that *neither* of the polarized oppinions concerning the proper treatment of Muggles, or by extention Muggle-born magicals is a traditional view, but instead are two opposing reactions to the necessity of having to loosen up the terms of their seclusion, in fairly recent history, in order to survive as a culture. Because if they don't, their numbers will fall to the point that the Goblins will easily overthrow them. Forgot about the Goblins, didn't you? Big mistake. -JOdel (the Goble-ins will "gitchya" Ef y' Don't Watch Out!) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] From toberead at excite.com Sat Feb 1 20:22:00 2003 From: toberead at excite.com (aquariajade ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 20:22:00 -0000 Subject: Reason versus Emotion Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51399 Hello there, After I posted so brazenly that I did not like Harry, I sat back and watched as the *inevitable* in defense of Harry posts came up. Each person took the different adjectives that I had described Harry with and came up disputed them, sometimes with canon example, IIRC. It got me to thinking about this board and reason versus emotion. Now please note, I am not a debater. I do not like debating. Debates seem to me to be highly thought out intellectual "arguments", in which someone always gets hurt. I do appreciate this the spirit of this board, though, the well-crafted theories and expostulations and thoughts I have read here have been nothing short of amazing (Elkins and Jasmin come to mind). But I am an emotional being, and how I view things is from that filter, generally. I do not like Harry. It is not an arguable subject. Nothing anyone says is going to make me say: "Aha! They are right, and Harry is not a nosey, self-centered, spoiled little git!" It is not possible, because it is an EMOTION, which can not be reasoned with. I just do not like him, and that is that. But I noticed that folks tried to use REASON to argue their points, and (I may be extrapolating here) to convince me otherwise. My point? Hmmm, do not know if I have one (I *told* you I was not good at debating), except to say that I firmly believe that all of us are here for the *emotional* impact HP has brought to us, and though we love to use our reason to theorize and discuss JKR's wonderful IMAGINARY world. A world in which the NOT REAL characters do not need defense as they are well, NOT REAL. But the people reading about and forming feelings about these characters ARE real, and that is what we need to keep in mind above all when we are *reasoning* with each other on our *emotions* about IMAGINARY people. So. Do not know if that had a point, felt like more of a ramble, but I ask that anyone who does respond be kind to me, a VERY REAL emotional person. Best, Jade From ra_1013 at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 22:36:07 2003 From: ra_1013 at yahoo.com (Andrea) Date: Sat, 1 Feb 2003 14:36:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: Reason versus Emotion In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20030201223607.38428.qmail@web10903.mail.yahoo.com> No: HPFGUIDX 51400 Hmm. I'm not sure if it's actually POSSIBLE to reply to this post, as that would be trying to answer emotion with reason, but I'll do my best because I'm a glutton for punishment. ;) Jade wrote: > It got me to thinking about this board and reason versus emotion. Now > please note, I am not a debater. I do not like debating. Debates seem > to me to be highly thought out intellectual "arguments", in which > someone always gets hurt. Actually, in a proper debate, feelings don't get hurt precisely because it ISN'T emotional. No one's going to say, "Ohmigod, you don't like Harry? You're such an idiot!" (Emotional reaction) People would instead reply, "You don't like Harry? Well, have you considered these reasons why he rocks?" (Intellectual reaction) > But I am an emotional being, and how I view things is from that > filter, generally. I do not like Harry. It is not an arguable > subject. Nothing anyone says is going to make me say: "Aha! They are > right, and Harry is not a nosey, self-centered, spoiled little git!" > It is not possible, because it is an EMOTION, which can not be > reasoned with. I just do not like him, and that is that. But I > noticed that folks tried to use REASON to argue their points, and (I > may be extrapolating here) to convince me otherwise. And you have absolutely every right to feel so. No one's saying otherwise. But...well...if the list was full of no one but people saying, "I hate Harry!" "Well, I like Harry!", it would either get very boring or full of people screaming at each other. Neither of which is a list I'd really care to frequent. ;) By at least presenting some reasons for a particular opinion, it gives us the opportunity to comment on what you've said without resorting to, "You hate Harry? You stink!" Much more interesting board, IMO. :) Andrea ===== "Reality is for people who lack imagination." __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com From annemehr at yahoo.com Sat Feb 1 22:50:49 2003 From: annemehr at yahoo.com (annemehr ) Date: Sat, 01 Feb 2003 22:50:49 -0000 Subject: Accio-proof Items (WAS:Re: House points and Dumbledore) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: No: HPFGUIDX 51401 --- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Grey Wolf " wrote: > Annemehr wrote: the neccessity > > of having some things Accio-proof would explain perfectly the fact > > that none of the Triwizard champions bothered to point their wands and > > say "Accio Egg!" > > > > There are two canon problems with this. The first one is that we know > of ways to stop people from aparating, but there is no canon whatsoever > to make us think that there is such thing as an anti-accioing charms. > It's not a yellow flag, since there is nothing against it either, but I > for one think it is higly unlikely - that sort of spell would be too > specific for be of any use. After all, you could probably use half a > dozen other spells that are more or less similar (like repelling chars > repelling the object towards you) by simply wishing it so - the > conection between intent and end result of the spells has been widely > discused and accepted. Hmm... maybe. Perhaps it would have required a general "spell-repelling charm" to force the champions to take the egg with their own hands, if such a thing is possible. > > The second point is that we *do* know that accio charm wouldn't have > worked particularly well (if at all) during the first challenge. 1) > Because the dragon was sitting on the eggs, so there is no place for > the egg to leave. Well, GoF, "The First Task" says, "And there was the Horntail, at the other end of the enclosure, crouched low over her clutch of eggs,..." which I always read as being closely *over* them but not actually *on* them (see my reply to #2 below). 2) Visual contact or familiarity seems to ba a must > for the spell Familiarity? How do we know Harry couldn't have just pictured a golden egg in his mind and that that would not have been enough to go on? But then, GoF says, just after Harry had taken off on his Firebolt, "He looked down at the clutch of eggs and spotted the gold one, gleaming against its cement-colored fellows, residing safely between the dragon's fromt legs." So, there has been no suggestion that the dragon has moved, the eggs are between her front legs, and I think Harry could certainly have used Accio on it now (unless magically prevented). and 3) The dragon hide absorbs magic and makes it null, > so any spell thrown towards the egg would be deflected or nullified by > the dragon itself before it could affect the egg. No argument here, I just think the eggs were visible. > > The solution is, of course, to distract the dragon away from the eggs, > which requires you to use magic constantly (or some other form of > distraction, as in Harry's case), and by the time the plan has actually > worked you've got so many spells in the air to get the dragon out of > the way that you are better off making a rush and grab approach. As Ron describes things to Harry afterwards, the champions only used one spell each except for Fleur, who also had to put her robes out with water from her wand. > > Hope that helps, Yeah -- the debates help me have fun on this list! ;) > > Grey Wolf Annemehr