[HPforGrownups] Re: BADD ANGST TBAY, Part II

[Carolina]

No: HPFGUIDX 81652

boyd_smythe:
> Ahoy there from the good ship BADD ANGST, silmariel! If I may
> respond to portions of your response to Jen:

silmariel, me, said:
>I can't agree respecting free will makes him so limited. He should  
>also respect his own free will, and the free will of those unnamed  
>creatures.

 And boyd replied:  
<<Does respecting others' free will mean that DD must liberate them? 
I argue no. Do the house elves even want to be liberated? Not 
currently, and it should be their choice, yes? I think the right 
answer is that every species must choose for itself, and all 
Dumbledore should do is accept their choice.>>

I never implied none of what you say. If you choose to atribute me 
that he should liberate creatures, I didn't. 

Jen:
>> 2. Respect for and use of the Deeper Mysteries of Magic-- > There 
is a mysterious "ancient magic" that Dumbledore ascribes to more 
fully than to the "Laws of Man" (in this case, the MOM) .
>> These deep mysteries appear to actualize in the form of binding 
connections between people or between people and magical objects. <<

> then silmariel responded:
> Here is where I call it having a cool mind and common sense.  
Dumbledore uses the weapons he has, and follows the rules he knows. 
 I mean, he knows they exist, so respecting here for me means not 
to  be so dumb as to overlook something he takes as a fact. 
Borrowing  Terry Pratchett an example: witches know gods exist in 
Discworld,  but believing in them would be like believing in the 
postman. <

boyd:
<<Again, it may be obvious to you, but we're simply assuming not 
everyone sees how Dumbledore is using his better understanding of 
the ancient magics as a weapon to defeat LV.>>

I didn't like the way Jen described ancient magic so I used a humor 
example. So what. I just called it another way. I didn't say he 
wasn't using it, I only said all examples of ancient magic being 
used by DD can be explained with a cool mind.

(Jen)>> These deep mysteries appear to actualize in the form of 
binding connections between people or between people and magical 
objects. <<

It sounded as someone trying to explain gravity to a medieval 
public, to me, so I used other words. Hope it's clear.

boyd:
<<Two thoughts. 
<<One: ancient does not have to equal complex. Do we 
really think Harry's Mom had time to perform a complex spell she'd 
never done before LV killed her? Probably not; her love and 
self-sacrifice seem to have generated that magic. Similarly, we 
don't know whether the creation of a Secret Keeper is a long, 
complex spell or as simple as an oath by the secret-keeper not to 
reveal the secret.>>

I tought Jen's quote from Flitwick said so, I couldn't care less if 
Secret Keeper is a complex or not spell, really. And as I said, 
Lily's self sacrifice smells muggle, so a 
you-have-to-do-nothing-except-being-a-self-sacrificing-mother 
applies perfectly, if you chose. I don't mind, also.

>> The Fidelius Charm is "An immensely complex spell…..involving the 
magical concealment of a secret inside a single, living soul.  The 
information is hidden inside the chosen person, or Secret Keeper…." 
(Prof. Flitwick, POA, chap. 10, p. 205) <<
  
<<Two: all we know is that the change of secret-keepers happened 
after DD and Lupin were informed that Sirius would be the 
secret-keeper. There could have been plenty of time for a big, long 
spell if Secret Keeping requires that. >>

quoting myself again:
>  See, I just thought it was a complex spell, but given each wizard  
should have a soul that was not the difficult part. Maybe I'm 
 biased by the, 'hey Wormtail, wannabe Secret Keeper?' last-moment  
change . <

Ok. I don't mind if this is difficult or not, what I say is that it 
doesn't matter that it is tied to a soul. They are plenty around. 
Half the amount of wizards hands, aproximately.

boyd:
<<Yes, Harry didn't put his name in the goblet himself, so he would 
apparently not have been bound by that magic. But DD says others 
would be-and that is the ancient magic Jen is talking about.>>

And all this time I was thinking that Harry was forced to compete, 
so I pitied him. So he could have just quit? He went trough all 
that risk on purpose?  

Jen defended Voldie despised ancient magic. Then he uses an example 
in wich a DE actually is making nice use of ancient magic. It 
seemed incoherent. But then I see you have used Wormtail's hand as 
example, so I must suppose Voldie doesn't despise it, after all.

<<Because ancient magic appears to be all about choices. Choose to 
put your name in the Goblet, and you must serve if chosen. 
Choose to give your life protecting someone, and your blood will 
protect them forever. Choose to entrust your secret to someone and 
only they will be able to uncover it. The servant must choose to 
give his flesh to return the master to life. Choose not to pass to 
the afterlife and you will remain a ghost. Choices. Boundaries. It 
all fits, yes?>>

No, but as I wasn't exposing my view on ancient magic, just replying 
to Jen's post because I liked it and what doesn't kill us make us 
strong, I'll stop here. 

Now on Iggy's post, this same thread:

I (silmariel) wrote:
 >But I hope he remains as counselor. Harry will be pierced in
 >politics without counseling. We don't want Harry starting a
 > civil war by accident.

Iggy McSnurd replied:
> Is anyone else seeing that line of thought quickly turning into
> the "Obi Wan / Luke Skywalker" type thing?

No no no. I turned it into the Young King with Wise Counselor 
stereotipe, not the Apprentice&Master one. I don't want DD dead as 
a lamb, as a 'necesary' sacrifice for Harry to be alone and grow to 
what he can be. It would be so starwars-ish I'd vomit. I don't want 
him retired or cornered, also. Why should he? In a war, even a 
hidden low-scale one, every individual is needed, I see no reason 
not to use DD's experience and professional skills. 

Now thank you, Pip!Squeak, for your excelent post on Lord After Lord 
canon.

boyd:
<By mentioning LV about a thousand times. By mentioning other evil 
wizards at best 3 times??? Huh?>

Yes. I visited rumania a few years after Ceaucescu's demise, and his 
name was mentioned a million times, but not hitler's or stalin's. 
So it is perfectly right, and a matter of opinion that you choose 
to read it as proof of a not-cycle scenario.

<And if the whole point of the books is to get Harry to break the 
cycle, then would JKR really have left us so in the dark about this 
cycle for so long?>

I don't think we are in the dark. My friends are not Harry fans, but 
they have read the novels, and they have not a problem buying there 
is a cycle. They are medium readers and they don't seem to find 
anything contradictory, just that it would be a nice bang. 

silmariel