House points and Dumbledore

[Tom Wall <thomasmwall@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51162


GREY WOLF WROTE:
I don't assume anything about Quirrels abilities. 
I assume that he cheated all the way. 

I REPLY:
Fair enough. Your ideas about how he cheated 
were excellent, re: back door! Heidi also had 
some creative thoughts too. Accio? Didn't cross 
my mind at all. And bypassing the chessboard, 
you know, it never occurred to me that somehow 
Dumbledore had to do that? ;-)


GREY WOLF WROTE:
Then it is your problem, but I can accept that 
Ron is a good enough chess player. It is not 
contrived, unless you consider the whole books 
in that light (a love spell that saves the child 
from certain death? Harry a natural on a broom? 
Hermione being the best student of the year?).
  
I REPLY:
Considering JKR to have taken the "deus ex machina" 
(ie Fawkes is the best example of this) approach says 
nothing about my appreciation for the books. Obviously 
I appreciate the books immensely, however contrived 
the plot devices might be (and they *are* contrived 
in the first two books.) Otherwise I wouldn't be here 
posting.

What I do appreciate is that as the books progress, 
the cheap plot devices get more tricky, and rely less 
on convenience, and more on actual dilemmas and real 
problems... more real storytelling in PoA and GoF, 
although there's still the contrivances. (i.e. Harry's
own patronus saves him in PoA)

There's no canon for McGonagall's chess 
skills, correct. But whatever the case, I think it's 
too easy, if an eleven year old can get through. 

GREY WOLF WROTE:
And yet you're still missing the point. Read my words again: I didn't 
say that Voldemort was powerful enough, I said *Quirrelmort* was 
powerful enough. 
I REPLY:
No point to miss. There is zero canon to support your assumptions 
about Quirrellmort's abilities. I'm asking a legitimate question.


I WROTE:
Unless we're working from different texts, that's not the case.

"...for the best-played game of chess Hogwarts has seen in many 
years..." (PS/SS 305)
 
No mention of self-sacrifice there.

GREY WOLF WROTE:
We are reading the same text, but we are interpreting differently. 
I REPLY:
I'm not interpreting anything. That's verbatim. No mention of self-
sacrifice. I appreciate your metaphor for the value of pieces and 
self-sacrifice in the interest of the greater good, I do, but they're 
all unrelated. Dumbledore gave Ron the points for a well played game 
of chess. Nothing more. I contest that an eleven year old could have 
played chess that well.  It seemed too easy.


> I WRITE, RE: HERMIONE'S TASK:
> I did forget that. Pardons. But honestly, were any 
> of you seriously unable to solve that puzzle? I 
> tried, myself, and was done pretty quickly. Pretty
> clear cut, if you ask me.

What are you talking about? AFAIK, the puzzle is unsolvable as 
described in the book, so you cannot have solved it, quickly or 
otherwise. 

I REPLY:
Alright, you're mostly right. You can get down to two bottles with a 
scrap of paper and a pen to draw yourself a diagram. And one of those 
two, depending on the size, is the right bottle to advance. If you 
could see the sizes, you'd be able to easily select it. Since you 
can't, you're technically right - I couldn't tell you exactly which 
bottle to pick. But if you could see the sizes, it's a super easy 
puzzle. No lateral thinking involved at all.

You know, was I the only one who thought that the protections for the 
stone were too simplistic? I'm encountering way more resistance on 
that comment than I thought I would. It seemed completely obvious to 
me that the protections were too simplistic. That was my first 
objection to PS/SS, was that if three eleven year olds could get 
through, then the stone must not have been well protected. Sans, of 
course, the Mirror of Erised, which, IMHO, *was* a brilliant way to 
keep it safe.

-Tom