[HPforGrownups] Re: What's annoying about Harry (WAS: Characters you hate)

[Amanda Geist]

No: HPFGUIDX 51467

Grey Wolf wrote various things:

<among them some priceless thoughts on nasty Snape comments *if* he had
known Harry heard voices....*loved* those>

(Amanda undergoes L.O.O.N. transformation, not having drunk her potion):

> He also knows that Voldemort was a Parselmouth "you can talk parsel
> because Voldemort, that is the last descendant of Salazar Slytherin,
> can talk parsel. If I am not mistaken, he transferred some of his
> powers the night he made you that scar".
>
> And of course, the *whole school* knows Harry speaks Parsel after the
> duel club.

The name of the language of snakes is not "Parsel." It is "Parseltongue."

> Thus, Dumbledore knows that there is a chamber, and that Slytherin
> could control snakes, and had an afinity to them (why else put a snake
> on one's own shield?).

As to the parenthetical--Many reasons. You like snakes. You like their
symbolism. You have a skin problem. It is, in fact, given in canon as the
reason the symbol for Slytherin house was a snake. But nothing in canon
tells us, in so many words, that the House coats were the personal coats of
arms of the founders. They probably were, but you technically *are* making a
leap here.

(Wrestles control back from her inner L.O.O.N.)

> In fact, in the face of all
> evidence, I think that my position is much stronger than yours.

Which makes absolutely no difference. There is canon evidence which can (at
this point) be validly interpreted that Snape *is* a vampire. Regardless of
the strength of the arguments, I will not believe it and you will not
convince me. I just don't *like* it, it doesn't *feel* right to me, no
matter how "strong" an argument there is. So I don't think this statement of
yours was particularly necessary. We're not out to convince; we're out to
discuss.

> Since he had to look into it's eyes to peck them out (which he did with
> pin-point precission), I assume that phoenix, as in the rest of
> literature, are immune to paralysis gaze.

Since you referenced it, what "rest of literature"?

> I'm certainly not going to believe that Fawkes, upon hearing Harry's
> inflammed defence of Dumbledore, got up from his pearch and decided -
> "umm - maybe I should take that sorting hat along. Never know when you
> might find a new student". For one thing, Fawkes doesn't seem
> intelligent enough for that kind of though - I give him the same sort
> of intelligence of a dolphin, which can learn to take things but would
> never decide on his own. So Dumbledore must have told him that he
> should take the hat to Harry. Which of course means that Dumbledore
> knew he would be needing a sword.

All of this is personal supposition. Dumbledore does not have to be involved
in this loop at all. We know next to nothing about the Hat. We don't know
that Godric's sword hasn't been in it for a thousand years. We don't know
that the Hat itself didn't say "take me with you," to Fawkes.

In addition, Dumbledore's "placing" the sword would obviate the most telling
point of the book. Dumbledore identifies Harry's pulling out of the sword as
the final indication that Harry does belong in Gryffindor. If Dumbledore
"sent" it, this is overt manipulation. But Dumbledore does not say "I sent
that because I knew you were a true Gryffindor," he says "Only a true
Gryffindor could have pulled that out of the hat." Harry's choices indicate
he is truly placed; the appearance of the sword confirms it, and Dumbledore
interprets this to Harry as a confirmation by independent agencies (i.e., he
does not put himself in the equation).

Dumbledore would have no reason to reassure Harry on this point, because he
does not know, prior to that final conversation, that Harry had any doubt;
isn't it in that same conversation that Harry first tells Dumbledore that
the Hat had considered putting him in Slytherin? How would Dumbledore have
*known* that Harry needed the reassurance of finding the sword?

Your firm conclusion that "Dumbledore must have told him that he should take
the hat to Harry" is based on your own conclusions from canon, not canon
itself. Your further "Which of course means that Dumbledore knew he would be
needing a sword" is supposition based on supposition.

 >We
> asume he does many things - and yet they are not explicit in canon.
> Which doesn't make them less likely. Dumbledore's knowledge of the
> Basilisk is firmly routed in canon,

Rooted in canon does not make it canon. It makes it a supported argument.
Many, many of the canon-supported arguments on this list are mutually
exclusive. Canon can be interpreted to support lots of differing opinions.
It does not mean you are right; it means that canon can support this
position, among others.

> So far, and until someone pokes holes in this, it is what in the list
> is called "hard canon" - not mentioned in the books but closely deduced
> from it - especially since I've yet to see anyone poke holes in it.

I've been on this list for rather a long time and haven't seen a distinction
of varieties of canon. If Jo Rowling wrote it, it's canon. If she didn't,
it's theorizing. Theorizing can be skillful or not, "out there" or
reasonable, but it's all theorizing. It's hard to poke holes in smoke, Wolf;
what you have built is an eminently reasonable interpretation which is just
that--your interpretation. Your canon facts are at the base, but the rest is
of your own building. If you convince someone it's true,
congratulations--but there are other equally valid interpretations of the
facts you have underneath your structure.

~Amanda