[HPforGrownups] Re: A far-fetched analysis of the Prophecy

[lissbell at colfax.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 70461


Hi Elle,

I hope my responses make sense.  I really should have explained myself 
fully in my original post.  I will regret that slip-up forever...

Elle wrote:
> Me:  This is an interesting theory, but there are a number of 
> problems with it.
> 1. As has been pointed out by others, Tom Riddle *is* Salazar 
> Slytherin's heir since he is able to open the Chamber of Secrets.


Lissa replied:
I absolutely believe Tom Riddle is Slytherin's heir.  I believe he got 
the Slytherin blood from Harry Potter.  And this all sounds quite mad. I 
know it does.  (foolish grin)


Elle wrote:
> 2.  Tom Riddle himself says in CoS: "I, in whose veins runs the blood 
> of Salazar Slytherin himself, through my mother's side."  Assuming 
> Ginny is his mother, there are a lots of other Weasleys out there in 
> whose veins also runs the blood of Salazar Slytherin.  


Lissa replied:
Since Tom believes his father is the muggle Tom Riddle Sr, he has to 
assume his Slytherin ancestry is on the maternal side.  In my opinion, 
he's wrong, but even if the Weasleys were descendants of Slytherin, it 
wouldn't be a problem.  (I just have reason to believe the Slytherin 
ancestry comes from Harry.)  I'm not sure why this is a problem 
unless... you're probably referring to Dumbledore's statement in CoS 
about Voldemort being the last remaining descendant of Slytherin??  In 
my opinion, Dumbledore is being deceitful in that passage.  The phrase 
"last remaining descendant" does not logically mean "only remaining 
descendant" even though it's commonly used this way.  Voldemort is just 
the descendant furthest down Slytherin's family tree.  Of the set of 
remaining Slytherin descendants (or ancestors according to some CoS 
texts), Voldemort is the last.  I hope this made sense, Elle.  I'm 
hopelessly tapped out tonight, or I'd try to explain it better.  Sorry! 
(apologetic smile)


Elle wrote:

> 3.  I read an interview with JKR at one time in which she was 
> discussing the issue of these books taking a darker turn and the 
> large audience of readers who are children.  She stated that she 
> would not soften up the hard issues and deaths in the books that she 
> has in her master plan for the series, but that certain things would 
> *not* be included as they would be inappropriate both for the 
> characters and the audience.  She gave as an example Hermione having 
> a teen pregnancy.  I would probably include promiscuious, pregnant 
> Ginny in that same vein of not-too-appropriate story lines.  I might 
> be wrong.  Elle   

Lissa replied:
I searched out that interview and read it.  It's hard for me to say 
whether JKR is suggesting that it would be inappropriate for *Hermione* 
to have an underage pregnancy because it would contradict her character 
or whether she's saying the whole thought of underage pregnancy is so 
distasteful it must not be included.  I should point out, though, that 
(as far as I can tell) "underage pregnancy" in England is defined as 
pregnancy conceived before the mother was 16.  Ginny will be 16 in book 7.

It is a troubling storyline, though.  I may have to rethink my current 
opinion that Ginny becomes pregnant in book 7.  I find it hard to 
believe that a major plot element would occur outside the timeline of 
the novels, but it's possible.  I also don't discount the possibility 
that Ginny's pregnancy could be the result of a strange spell or potion 
and not the result of physical contact with Harry.  (This would fit 
nicely with the Christ-Dark Lord parallels in the series.)  Regardless, 
I don't think for a *second* Rowling would write something graphically 
sexual in the Potter series.  That *would* be inappropriate.

You've given me a good point to consider, Elle.  I may have to revise my 
theoretical timeline a little.

Thanks,
Lissa B